Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06628/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06628-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Captain Boyles
Appellee
Joe Driver
Appellee
Bobby Hazel
Appellant
Harley G. Lappin
Appellee
Jorges Vazquez
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6628

BOBBY HAZEL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

HARLEY G. LAPPIN, Director, United States Bureau of Prisons; 

JOE DRIVER; CAPTAIN BOYLES, Administrator; JORGES VAZQUEZ, 

Doctor,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert E. Maxwell, Senior 

District Judge. (2:09-cv-00070-REM)

Submitted: July 22, 2010 Decided: August 3, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bobby Hazel, Appellant Pro Se. Rita R. Valdrini, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellees

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-6628 Doc: 11 Filed: 08/03/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Bobby Hazel appeals the district court order denying 

his motion to alter and amend the judgment under Rule 59 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, denying his motion under Rule 

60(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and denying his 

motion submitting newly discovered evidence. We have reviewed 

the court’s order and the record and affirm for the reasons 

cited by the court.*

AFFIRMED

 See Hazel v. Lappin, No. 2:09-cv-00070-REM 

(N.D.W. Va. Apr. 13, 2010). 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.

 * We note the district court denied Hazel’s Rule 59(e) 

motion on the merits and because it was filed more than ten days 

after entry of judgment. Under amended Rule 59, effective 

December 1, 2009, Hazel had twenty-eight days in which to file 

his Rule 59 motion. Because he filed his motion within twentyeight days of entry of judgment, it was timely. We affirm, 

however, the court’s alternate disposition, denying the motion 

on the merits. 

Appeal: 10-6628 Doc: 11 Filed: 08/03/2010 Pg: 2 of 2