Case Name: Herman E. HARSTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. P.L. HUFFMAN, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-01-28
Citations: 56 F. App'x 128
Docket Number: No. 02-7504
Parties: Herman E. HARSTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. P.L. HUFFMAN, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 56
Pages: 128–129

Head Matter:
Herman E. HARSTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. P.L. HUFFMAN, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 02-7504.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 16, 2003.
Decided Jan. 28, 2003.
Herman E. Harston, Appellant Pro Se. Katherine P. Baldwin, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Afirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Herman E. Harston appeals the district court's order denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion. See Dunlap v. Litscher, 301 F.3d 873, 876 (7th Cir.2002); Rodriguez v. Mitchell, 252 F.3d 191, 203 n. 3 (2d Cir.2001); Fierro v. Johnson, 197 F.3d 147, 150 (5th Cir.1999). Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Harston v. Huffman, No. CA-95-1294-R (W.D.Va. Sept. 12, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.