Arthur Gooden, II v. US

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to seal [999336905-2] Originating case number: 4:13-cv-00126-MSD-TEM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999360135].. [14-1129]

Appeal: 14-1129

Doc: 10

Filed: 05/21/2014

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1129

ARTHUR LEE GOODEN, II,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; BARACK
HUSSEIN OBAMA; TONYA R. HENDERSON-STITH; CHRISTOPHER W.
HUTTON; BONNIE L. JONES; TIMOTHY FISHER; VINCENT H. CONWAY;
ALBERT PATRICK; GARY MILLS; BRYANT LEE SUGG; RICHARD KURNS;
ALFRED MASTERS; PAMELA JONES; WILLIAM H. SHAW; PETER
TRENCH; MATHEWS; NELSON T. OVERTON; JANE & JOHN DOES,
1-100; JANE & JOHN DOES, A-Z (all officers of the
Commonwealth of Virginia); JANE & JOHN DOES, I-X; JANE &
JOHN DOES, A-Z (all officers of the United States),
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Mark S. Davis, District
Judge. (4:13-cv-00126-MSD-TEM)

Submitted:

May 5, 2014

Decided:

May 21, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Arthur Lee Gooden, II, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-1129

Doc: 10

Filed: 05/21/2014

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Arthur Lee Gooden, II, appeals the district court’s
order

denying

dismissing

his

his

motion
civil

post-judgment filings.

for

reconsideration

complaint

and

of

its

denying

order

multiple

On review of the record, we conclude

that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying
relief pursuant to either Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) or Fed. R. Civ.
P. 60(b) and did not err in declining to grant Gooden’s other
post-judgment demands.

See Robinson v. Wix Filtration Corp.,

599 F.3d 403, 407 (4th Cir. 2010) (standard of review for Rule
59(e)); MLC Auto., LLC v. Town of S. Pines, 532 F.3d 269, 277
(4th

Cir.

2008)

(standard

of

review

for

Rule

60(b)).

Accordingly, we affirm based on the reasoning of the district
court.

Gooden v. United States, No. 4:13-cv-00126-MSD-TEM (E.D.

Va. filed Dec. 6 & entered Dec. 9, 2013).

We deny Gooden’s

motion to seal the attachment to his motion filed on April 15,
2014.
legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

2