John Kimble v. Rajesh Rajpal
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:13-cv-00298-CMH-IDD Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999474999]. Mailed to: Kimble. [14-1538]
Appeal: 14-1538
Doc: 12
Filed: 11/14/2014
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1538
JOHN B. KIMBLE,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
RAJESH K. RAJPAL, M.D.; RAJESH K. RAJPAL, trading as See
Clearly Vision Group, L.L.C.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:13-cv-00298-CMH-IDD)
Submitted:
October 30, 2014
Before NIEMEYER and
Senior Circuit Judge.
THACKER,
Decided:
Circuit
November 14, 2014
Judges,
and
HAMILTON,
John B. Kimble, Appellant Pro Se.
Thomas Clyde
COWDREY THOMPSON PC, Easton, Maryland, for Appellees.
Marriner,
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 14-1538
Doc: 12
Filed: 11/14/2014
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
John B. Kimble filed a civil action against Rajesh K.
Rajpal, M.D., and related corporate parties, asserting Virginia
tort
law
claims
under
diversity
jurisdiction.
The
district
court dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction and denied
Kimble’s subsequent Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion seeking relief
from
that
judgment.
Kimble
appealed,
and
we
affirmed.
Kimble v. Rajpal, 566 F. App’x 261, 263-64 (4th Cir. 2014) (Nos.
13-2140, 14-1024).
After our opinion issued, Kimble filed a
motion and amended motion “to reinstate and substitute parties,”
which the district court denied.
motion
seeking
reconsideration
Kimble also filed a Rule 59(e)
of
that
order.
Kimble
now
appeals the orders denying these post-appeal motions.
We review these orders for abuse of discretion.
See
Equal Rights Ctr. v. Niles Bolton Assocs., 602 F.3d 597, 603
(4th Cir. 2010); Robinson v. Wix Filtration Corp., 599 F.3d 403,
407 (4th Cir. 2010).
Our review of the record demonstrates no
abuse of discretion, as Kimble was not entitled to reinstate his
claims with new parties or to continue the litigation on its
merits following our opinion affirming its dismissal.
Insofar
as Kimble’s informal brief raises claims unrelated to the orders
at issue in this appeal, these arguments are not properly before
us.
2
Appeal: 14-1538
Doc: 12
Filed: 11/14/2014
Accordingly,
We
dispense
contentions
with
are
oral
we
Pg: 3 of 3
affirm
argument
adequately
the
district
because
presented
in
court’s
orders.
the
facts
and
the
materials
legal
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?