Eric Alan Sanders v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-1861

ERIC ALAN SANDERS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

LOWE’S HOME CENTERS, LLC,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION; JOHN HAYWARD;
MIKE CALZAREETA; DOUG FORD; RAYVON IRBY,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock
Hill. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (0:15-cv-02313-JMC)

Submitted: April 17, 2020 Decided: May 19, 2020

Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

2

Eric Alan Sanders, Appellant Pro Se. William Grayson Lambert, Richard James Morgan,
BURR & FORMAN, LLP, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

3

PER CURIAM:
Eric Alan Sanders appeals the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60
motion. We review the district court’s order for abuse of discretion, Aikens v. Ingram, 652
F.3d 496, 501 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc), and we “may affirm a district court’s ruling on
any ground apparent in the record,” United States ex rel Drakeford v. Tuomey, 792 F.3d
364, 375 (4th Cir. 2015). Sanders either sought to relitigate matters that the district court
and this Court previously decided or raise new issues that should have been raised prior to
judgment or on direct appeal, neither of which is permissible in a Rule 60 motion. See
Aikens, 652 F.3d at 501 (recognizing litigant may not raise an issue in a Rule 60 motion
that could have been addressed on direct appeal); CNF Constructors, Inc. v. Donohoe
Const. Co., 57 F.3d 395, 401 (4th Cir. 1995) (explaining that, “where a motion is for
reconsideration of legal issues already addressed in an earlier ruling, the motion is not
authorized by Rule 60(b)” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Therefore, we affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED