Case Name: Brenda Y. WILLS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WAL-MART STORES, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-11-24
Citations: 113 F. App'x 551
Docket Number: No. 04-1017
Parties: Brenda Y. WILLS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WAL-MART STORES, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 113
Pages: 551–551

Head Matter:
Brenda Y. WILLS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WAL-MART STORES, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 04-1017.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 1, 2004.
Decided: Nov. 24, 2004.
Reuben Collins, LaPlata, Maryland, for Appellant.
Christopher R. Dunn, Decaro, Doran, Siciliano, Gallagher & Deblasis, LLP, Lanham, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Brenda Y. Wills appeals from the district court's order in this action alleging that Wills sustained personal injuries as a result of Wal-Mart's negligence. We affirm.
Subsequent to the filing of the complaint, Wills' attorney sought, and was granted, permission to withdraw from representation of Wills. A number of continuances were granted by the district judge to allow time for Wills to retain other counsel, but no one was ever hired. The district judge finally advised Wills of the need for the court to move forward on the summary judgment motion that had been filed by Wal-Mart. Wills was specifically warned that a failure to respond would result in summary judgment being entered against her. No response of any kind was ever forthcoming from Wills. The district court then granted Wal-Mart's motion for summary judgment on September 23, 2003.
Later, when counsel had been retained, Wills moved to vacate the grant of summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). This motion was denied by the district court on October 30, 2003. A pro se notice of appeal was filed on November 26, 2003, seeking reversal of the October 30, 2003 order.
We have reviewed this matter and find the appeal without merit. We accordingly affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before us and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED