Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-08-01268/USCOURTS-ca4-08-01268-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1268

LAWRENCE VERLINE WILDER, SR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

BRENDA J. DAVIS,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District 

Judge. (1:97-cv-02509-FNS)

Submitted: March 12, 2010 Decided: March 30, 2010

Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lawrence Verline Wilder, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 08-1268 Doc: 19 Filed: 03/30/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Lawrence Verline Wilder, Sr., appeals the district 

court’s order denying his motion to reconsider the denial of his 

request to reopen a civil action that has been closed for ten 

years. We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of 

discretion. See Heyman v. M.L. Mktg. Co., 116 F.3d 91, 94 (4th

Cir. 1997) (providing standard). Accordingly, we deny Wilder’s 

motion for appointment of counsel and affirm. 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

 

Wilder filed a pro se notice of appeal outside of the 

appeal period, and we remanded to the district court to 

determine whether Wilder had demonstrated excusable neglect or 

good cause warranting an extension of the appeal period. See

Wilder v. Davis, 298 F. App’x 225 (4th Cir. 2008) (No. 08-1268). 

The district court found Wilder demonstrated excusable neglect 

and therefore deemed the notice of appeal timely filed. 

Accordingly, we review the appeal on the merits.

Appeal: 08-1268 Doc: 19 Filed: 03/30/2010 Pg: 2 of 2