Case Name: Bobby HAZEL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Harley G. LAPPIN, Director, United States Bureau of Prisons; Joe Driver; Captain Boyles, Administrator; Jorges Vazquez, Doctor, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-08-03
Citations: 389 F. App'x 224
Docket Number: No. 10-6628
Parties: Bobby HAZEL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Harley G. LAPPIN, Director, United States Bureau of Prisons; Joe Driver; Captain Boyles, Administrator; Jorges Vazquez, Doctor, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 389
Pages: 224–224

Head Matter:
Bobby HAZEL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Harley G. LAPPIN, Director, United States Bureau of Prisons; Joe Driver; Captain Boyles, Administrator; Jorges Vazquez, Doctor, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-6628.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 22, 2010.
Decided: Aug. 3, 2010.
Bobby Hazel, Appellant ProSe. Rita R. Vaidrini, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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. 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.
AFFIRMED.
We note the district court denied Hazel's Rule 5 9(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 tweniy-eight days in which to file his Rule 59 motion. Because he filed his motion within twenty-eight days of entry of judgment, it was timely. We affirm, however, the court's alternate disposition, denying the motion on the merits.