Case Name: Maher SOLIMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WORLDWIDE LANGUAGE RESOURCES, INC.; Does 1-20, Inclusive, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-10-04
Citations: 698 F. App'x 135
Docket Number: No. 17-1643
Parties: Maher SOLIMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WORLDWIDE LANGUAGE RESOURCES, INC.; Does 1-20, Inclusive, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before SHEDD, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 698
Pages: 135–136

Head Matter:
Maher SOLIMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WORLDWIDE LANGUAGE RESOURCES, INC.; Does 1-20, Inclusive, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-1643
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: September 22, 2017
Decided: October 4, 2017
Maher Solimán, Appellant Pro Se. Gabriel T. Dym, ECKERT SEAMANS CHE-RIN & MELLOTT, LLC, Boston, Massachusetts, for Appellee.
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
On December 29, 2016, the district court entered its order dismissing Maher Soli-man's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Solimán did not move for reconsideration of the order. Instead, on January 12, 2017, he filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint as well as a proposed amended complaint. The district court denied the motion to amend, finding that any amendment would be futile. Solimán appeals.
We review the district court's order for abuse of discretion. Mayfield v. National Ass'n for Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc., 674 F.3d 369, 379-80 (4th Cir. 2012). We have "repeatedly held that a motion to amend filed after a judgment of dismissal has been entered cannot be considered until the judgment is vacated." Calvary Christian Ct. v. City of Fredericksburg, 710 F.3d 536, 540 (4th Cir. 2013). Because the complaint Solimán sought to amend had been dismissed by a final judgment and he did not request that the judgment be opened or vacated, we will not consider whether the district court correctly applied Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in- the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED