Case Name: Willard R. MEADOWS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Scarlett RATCLIFFE, Clerk of Court of Giles County; Randy Cargill, Attorney; David Mullins, Attorney; Clifford Johnson; William Smith; Leonard Steve Songer; Barbara Lee McGuire; Albert McGuire; Randall Duncan, Esquire, The Commonwealth Attorney; Willis Woods, The Honorable Retired Judge (Deceased), Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-05-04
Citations: 8 F. App'x 230
Docket Number: No. 01-1290
Parties: Willard R. MEADOWS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Scarlett RATCLIFFE, Clerk of Court of Giles County; Randy Cargill, Attorney; David Mullins, Attorney; Clifford Johnson; William Smith; Leonard Steve Songer; Barbara Lee McGuire; Albert McGuire; Randall Duncan, Esquire, The Commonwealth Attorney; Willis Woods, The Honorable Retired Judge (Deceased), Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 8
Pages: 230–231

Head Matter:
Willard R. MEADOWS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Scarlett RATCLIFFE, Clerk of Court of Giles County; Randy Cargill, Attorney; David Mullins, Attorney; Clifford Johnson; William Smith; Leonard Steve Songer; Barbara Lee McGuire; Albert McGuire; Randall Duncan, Esquire, The Commonwealth Attorney; Willis Woods, The Honorable Retired Judge (Deceased), Defendants-Appellees.
No. 01-1290.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 27, 2001.
Decided May 4, 2001.
Willard R. Meadows, pro se.
Robert F. Rider, Rider, Thomas, Cleaveland, Ferris & Eakin; Randy Virlin Cargill, Magee, Foster, Goldstein & Sayers, P.C., Roanoke, VA; David Mullins, Blacksburg, VA; Max Jenkins, Jenkins & Quigley, Radford, VA, for appellees.
Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Willard Russell Meadows appeals from the district court's orders denying his two Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motions seeking reconsideration of the court's prior orders dismissing his complaint filed under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court's orders and find no abuse of discretion. See In re Burnley, 988 F.2d 1, 3 (4th Cir.1992). Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Meadows v. Ratcliffe, No. CA-99-624-R (W.D.Va. Jan. 30 & Feb. 12, 2001). We deny the motion for 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.