Case ID: f-appx_572/html/0193-01.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

Arthur Lee GOODEN, II, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; Commonwealth of Virginia; Barack Hussein Obama; Tonya R. Henderson-Stith; Christopher W. Hutton; Bonnie L. Jones; Timothy Fisher; Vincent H. Conway; Albert Patrick; Gary Mills; Bryant Lee Sugg; Richard Kurns; Alfred Masters; Pamela Jones; William H. Shaw; Peter Trench; Mathews; Nelson T. Overton; Jane & John Does, 1-100; Jane & John Does, A-Z (all officers of the Commonwealth of Virginia); Jane & John Does, I-X; Jane & John Does, A-Z (all officers of the United States), Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 14-1129.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: May 5, 2014.
    Decided: May 21, 2014.
    Arthur Lee Gooden, II, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Arthur Lee Gooden, II, appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of its order dismissing his civil complaint and denying multiple post-judgment filings. On review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief pursuant to either Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) or Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b) and did not err in declining to grant Gooden’s other post-judgment demands. See Robinson v. Wix Filtration Corp., 599 F.3d 403, 407 (4th Cir.2010) (standard of review for Rule 59(e)); MLC Auto., LLC v. Town of S. Pines, 532 F.3d 269, 277 (4th Cir.2008) (standard of review for Rule 60(b)). Accordingly, we affirm based on the reasoning of the district court. Gooden v. United States, No. 4:13—cv-00126-MSD-TEM (E.D. Va. filed Dec. 6 & entered Dec. 9, 2013). We deny Goo-den’s motion to seal the attachment to his motion filed on April 15, 2014. 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.