The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
07-6914•Lawrence Verline Wilder, Sr. v. Marc Alan Greidinger
07-6914Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitDec 28, 2007
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1131
LAWRENCE VERLINE WILDER, SR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MARC ALAN GREIDINGER,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge.
(1:97-cv-02283-WDQ)
Submitted: July 31, 2008 Decided: August 4, 2008
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lawrence Verline Wilder, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Marc Alan
Greidinger, Springfield, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Lawrence Verline Wilder, Sr., appeals the district
court’s orders denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to reopen
his 1997 breach of contract action, and his motion to vacate the
denial of the motion to reopen. We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons
stated by the district court. Wilder v. Greidinger, No.
1:97-cv-02283-WDQ (D. Md. Dec. 5, 2007 & Dec. 17, 2007). We deny
Wilder’s motion to appoint counsel. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.