Court Opinion

ID: 9397984
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-27 21:00:38.320931+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:29.334347
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1093      Doc: 17         Filed: 05/26/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1093

        SHAOMIN SUI,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INCORPORATED,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        Deborah Lynn Boardman, District Judge. (1:19-cv-03318-DLB)

        Submitted: May 23, 2023                                           Decided: May 26, 2023

        Before AGEE, WYNN, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Shaomin Sui, Appellant Pro Se. Brian James Kluckman, Moon Township, Pennsylvania,
        William George Whitman, IV, FEDEX GROUND, Coraopolis, Pennsylvania, for
        Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1093       Doc: 17         Filed: 05/26/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Shaomin Sui seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for

        reconsideration of its order denying his motion to reopen his case. We have reviewed the

        record and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief. See

        Aikens v. Ingram, 652 F.3d 496, 501 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (stating standard of review).

        Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Sui v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc.,

        No. 1-19-cv-03318-DLB (D. Md. Jan. 26, 2023). 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