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)
09-1588•Kevin Robertson v. Peter V.r. Franchot; James T. Loftus
09-1588Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitOct 23, 2009
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-1588
KEVIN ROBERTSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
PETER V.R. FRANCHOT; JAMES T. LOFTUS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, Chief District
Judge. (1:07-cv-03042-BEL)
Submitted: October 20, 2009 Decided: October 23, 2009
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and
HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kevin Robertson, Appellant Pro Se. Brian L. Oliner, Michael
Joseph Salem, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND,
Annapolis, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Kevin Robertson appeals the district court’s marginal
order, entered on April 24, 2009, denying his motion to
reconsider the dismissal of his civil action. We have reviewed
the record and find the district did not abuse its discretion in
denying Robertson’s motion to reconsider. See Boryan v. United
States, 884 F.2d 767, 771 (4th Cir. 1989) (providing review
standard). Accordingly, we affirm. 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.