Case ID: f-appx_509/html/0264-01.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

Joe LOGAN, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee, and Unknown Correctional Officer; Unknown Correctional Officer, Defendants.
    No. 12-7582.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Jan. 28, 2013.
    Decided: Feb. 12, 2013.
    Joe Logan, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Seth Morgan Wood, Office of The United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Ap-pellee.
    Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Joe Logan, Sr., appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his action under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion. On appeal, Logan argues that the district court abused its discretion in rejecting his requests to reopen discovery and for an enlargement of time. He also challenges the district court’s conclusion that his FTCA claim is barred by the discretionary function exception to sovereign immunity. See 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error as to these issues. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. Logan v. United States, No. 5:10-ct-03173-FL, 2012 WL 255335 (E.D.N.C. Jan. 27, 2012 & Sept. 6, 2012). We deny Logan’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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. 
      
       While we conclude that the district court erred in construing Logan's motion to alter or amend as a Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion, we conclude this error was harmless, as Logan cannot demonstrate that he is entitled to relief under Rule 59(e). See Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat. Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir.1998) (describing Rule 59(e) standard).