Case ID: f-appx_56/html/0128-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Herman E. HARSTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. P.L. HUFFMAN, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 02-7504.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 16, 2003.
    Decided Jan. 28, 2003.
    Herman E. Harston, Appellant Pro Se. Katherine P. Baldwin, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Afirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Herman E. Harston appeals the district court’s order denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion. See Dunlap v. Litscher, 301 F.3d 873, 876 (7th Cir.2002); Rodriguez v. Mitchell, 252 F.3d 191, 203 n. 3 (2d Cir.2001); Fierro v. Johnson, 197 F.3d 147, 150 (5th Cir.1999). Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Harston v. Huffman, No. CA-95-1294-R (W.D.Va. Sept. 12, 2002). 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.