Case ID: f-appx_1/html/0218-01.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

John R. LOWERY, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. A.D. MATHEWS, Sr., Former Sheriff, County of Henrico; Michael Wade, Sheriff, County of Henrico, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 00-1812.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 29, 2000.
    Decided Jan. 12, 2001.
    Robert P. Geary, Richmond, VA, for appellant. Sharon Maitland Moon, LeClair Ryan, P.C., Richmond, VA, for appellees.
    Before WILKINS and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   PER CURIAM.

John R. Lowery, Jr., appeals the district court’s order declining to reconsider its final order dismissing his employment discrimination action and denying his motion to file a second amended complaint. We have reviewed the district court’s order and the record on appeal and find no reversible error. The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to grant relief from its final order under either Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) or Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). See Brown v. French, 147 F.3d 307, 310 (4th Cir.1998) (describing standard of review for Rule 59(e)); Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 263 n. 7, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (describing standard for Rule 60(b)). Neither did the court abuse its discretion in declining to allow Lowery to file an amended complaint after the court dismissed his original complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. See Pittston Co. v. United States, 199 F.3d 694, 705 (4th Cir.1999).

Finding no merit to either of Lowery’s contentions on appeal, 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.