Court Opinion

ID: 9945471
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-27 21:01:04.623336+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:33.397936
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-2261      Doc: 11         Filed: 02/26/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-2261

        ISLAM F. BEG,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, United States Secretary of Homeland Security,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. Patricia Tolliver Giles, District Judge. (1:22-cv-01224-PTG-JFA)

        Submitted: February 22, 2024                                 Decided: February 26, 2024

        Before NIEMEYER and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Islam F. Beg, Appellant Pro Se. Rebecca Sara Levenson, Assistant United States Attorney,
        OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-2261      Doc: 11         Filed: 02/26/2024      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Islam F. Beg appeals the district court’s order denying Beg’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)

        motion for reconsideration of the court’s prior order granting Defendant’s motion to

        dismiss Beg’s action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C.

        §§ 621 to 634, and denying Beg’s postjudgment motion to amend his complaint. We have

        reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s

        order. Beg v. Mayorkas, 1:22-cv-01224-PTG-JFA (E.D. Va. Nov. 2, 2022). We dispense

        with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

        materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                        AFFIRMED

                                                     2