Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01341/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01341-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1341

RICKEY NELSON JONES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS, Maryland Judiciary,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, Chief District 

Judge. (1:15-cv-03336-CCB)

Submitted: October 28, 2016 Decided: November 8, 2016

Before NIEMEYER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rickey Nelson Jones, LAW OFFICES OF REVEREND RICKEY NELSON 

JONES, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Brian E. Frosh, 

Attorney General of Maryland, Michele J. McDonald, Assistant 

Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1341 Doc: 32 Filed: 11/08/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Rickey Nelson Jones appeals the district court’s orders

dismissing his civil action alleging employment discrimination 

in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and 

denying his motion to reconsider under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). 

We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to 

state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Philips v. Pitt 

Cnty. Mem’l Hosp., 572 F.3d 176, 179-80 (4th Cir. 2009). We 

review the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for abuse of 

discretion. MLC Auto., LLC v. Town of S. Pines, 532 F.3d 269, 

277 (4th Cir. 2008); Heyman v. M.L. Mktg. Co., 116 F.3d 91, 94 

(4th Cir. 1997). We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. Jones v. Admin. Office, No. 1:15-cv03336-CCB (D. Md. Mar. 17, 2016; Mar. 23, 2016). 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

Appeal: 16-1341 Doc: 32 Filed: 11/08/2016 Pg: 2 of 2