Case Name: UNITED STATES ex rel. Alex ABOU-HUSSEIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION; Sentek Consulting, Defendants-Appellees, and Eagan Mcallister Associates, Incorporated; Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-08-23
Citations: 475 F. App'x 851
Docket Number: No. 12-1701
Parties: UNITED STATES ex rel. Alex ABOU-HUSSEIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION; Sentek Consulting, Defendants-Appellees, and Eagan Mcallister Associates, Incorporated; Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command, Defendants.
Judges: Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 475
Pages: 851–851

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES ex rel. Alex ABOU-HUSSEIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION; Sentek Consulting, Defendants-Appellees, and Eagan Mcallister Associates, Incorporated; Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command, Defendants.
No. 12-1701.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 21, 2012.
Decided: Aug. 23, 2012.
Alex Abou-Hussein, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Kinney Helvin, Michael L. Waldman, Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck, Unter-einer & Sauber, LLP, Washington, D.C.; Gary K. Brucker, Jr., Christian D. Hum-phreys, McKenna Long and Aldridge, San Diego, California, for Appellees.
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Alex Abou-Hussein appeals the district court's- order denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Abou-Hussein v. Science Applications Int'l Corp., No. 2:09-cv-01858-RMG (D.S.C. May 3, 2012). 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.