Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-15-05059/USCOURTS-caDC-15-05059-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 15-5059 September Term, 2015

1:14-cv-01075-UNA

Filed On: December 29, 2015

David E. Hill,

Appellant

v.

Rudolph Contreras, District Judge and Jane

Doe, District Court Clerk, In their official and

individual capacity,

Appellees

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEFORE: Srinivasan and Wilkins, Circuit Judges; Ginsburg, Senior Circuit

Judge

J U D G M E N T

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P.

34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed February 10,

2015, be affirmed. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s

motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). See Murray v. District

of Columbia, 52 F.3d 353, 355 (D.C. Cir. 1995). Appellant is advised that the district

court filed his motion for relief from judgment in No. 13cv1037 on April 7, 2014, and

denied it on May 21, 2014; those actions were entered on the district court docket on

May 22, 2014.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk

is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution

of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App.

P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam

USCA Case #15-5059 Document #1590865 Filed: 12/29/2015 Page 1 of 1