Michael Nolan v. Matthew Hamidullah

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [998512670-2]. Originating case number: 4:07-cv-01141-JFA. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998704914]. [11-6070]

Appeal: 11-6070

Document: 34

Date Filed: 10/20/2011

Page: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6070

MICHAEL NOLAN,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
MATTHEW HAMIDULLAH; M. L. RIVERA; KATHRYN MACK; RAY HOLT;
HARRELL WATTS; ALBERTO R. GONZALEZ; HARLEY G. LAPPIN;
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; BUREAU OF PRISONS, THE; JOHN DOE;
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (4:07-cv-01141-JFA)

Submitted:

October 13, 2011

Decided:

October 20, 2011

Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

J. Ashley Twombley, TWENGE & TWOMBLEY, Port Royal, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Barbara Murcier Bowens, Assistant
United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-6070

Document: 34

Date Filed: 10/20/2011

Page: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Michael

Nolan

appeals

four

orders

of

the

district

court, challenging the district court’s determinations that the
Federal

Bureau

of

Prisons

(“BOP”)

has

substantially

complied

with a settlement agreement between the parties, finding all
pending motions to be moot, and denying Nolan’s motions to alter
or amend the judgment.

We review a district court’s decision

regarding enforcement of a settlement agreement for abuse of
discretion.

Williams v. Prof’l Transp., Inc., 388 F.3d 127, 131

(4th Cir. 2004).
59(e)

motion

We also review the denial of a Fed. R. Civ. P.

to

alter

or

amend

a

judgment

for

abuse

of

discretion.

Sloas v. CSX Transp. Inc., 616 F.3d 380, 388 (4th

Cir. 2010).

Having reviewed the district court’s orders, and

finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm the decisions of the
district court.
counsel
dispense

and

Accordingly, we deny Nolan’s motion to appoint

affirm

with

oral

the

judgment

argument

of

the

because

district
the

facts

court.
and

We
legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

2