Case Name: Michael A. SCOTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN CORPORATION; Kenneth E. William; Steven G. Jackson; Elias I. Vega, Defendants-Appellees; Michael A. Scott, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Norfolk Southern Corporation, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-07-27
Citations: 667 F. App'x 411
Docket Number: No. 16-1227, No. 16-1228
Parties: Michael A. SCOTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN CORPORATION; Kenneth E. William; Steven G. Jackson; Elias I. Vega, Defendants-Appellees. Michael A. Scott, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Norfolk Southern Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 667
Pages: 411–411

Head Matter:
Michael A. SCOTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN CORPORATION; Kenneth E. William; Steven G. Jackson; Elias I. Vega, Defendants-Appellees. Michael A. Scott, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Norfolk Southern Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 16-1227, No. 16-1228
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 19, 2016
Decided: July 27, 2016
Michael A. Scott, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Johnson Webster, WILLCOX & SAVAGE, PC, Norfolk, Virginia; Roy Barrow Blackwell, Hunter Wilmer Sims, Jr., KAUFMAN & CAÑOLES, PC, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding, precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Michael A. Scott appeals the district court's orders denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) motion and his motion for reconsideration. We grant Scott's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We have reviewed the record and affirm for the reasons cited by the district court. Scott v. Norfolk S. Corp., No. 2:95-cv-00377-RBS; 2:95-cv-00815-RBS (E.D. Va. Jan. 22, 2016; Feb. 22, 2016). We deny the Appellees' motion for sanctions. 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