Case ID: f-appx_58/html/0998-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Dawn FIGMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SPRINT, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 02-2371.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted March 6, 2003.
    Decided March 13, 2003.
    Dawn Figman, Appellant Pro Se. Neal Lawrence Walters, Charlottesville, Virginia; Timothy J. Nieman, Rhoads & Simon, L.L.P., Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Dawn Figman appeals the district court’s order denying her Motion for Relief of Judgment Order filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Figman v. Sprint, No. CA-01-3 (W.D.Va. Nov. 13, 2002). We deny Figman’s motion for leave to amend her informal brief and her motions for an extension of time. 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.