Calvin Brown v. Sears Holding Management Corp

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999776832-2]. Originating case number: 4:14-cv-00033-D. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999828571]. Mailed to: Calvin Earl Brown. [16-1212]

Appeal: 16-1212

Doc: 13

Filed: 05/20/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1212

CALVIN EARL BROWN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SEARS
HOLDING
MANAGEMENT
CORPORATION,
d/b/a
Kmart
Corporation #7080; THOMAS M. COLCLOUGH, Director US EEOC,
Raleigh Area Office; STEVE DOOLEY; RAJENONAKYMAR PATEL;
JAYESH PATEL,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. James C. Dever, III,
Chief District Judge. (4:14-cv-00033-D)

Submitted:

May 18, 2016

Decided:

May 20, 2016

Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Calvin Earl Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Paul S. Holscher, JACKSON
LEWIS PC, Raleigh, North Carolina, David A. Hughes, JACKSON
LEWIS PC, Atlanta, Georgia; Roberto Francisco Ramirez, Assistant
United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1212

Doc: 13

Filed: 05/20/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Calvin

Earl

denying

his

order

denying

Brown

second

discrimination.

appeals

motion

his

to

the

district

reconsider

civil

action

the

court’s
court’s

alleging

order
earlier

employment

We have reviewed the record and find no abuse

of discretion by the district court.

See Werner v. Carbo, 731

F.2d 204, 206 (4th Cir. 1984) (noting review standard for Fed.
R. Civ. P. 60(b) denial). *

Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed

in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal.

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.

DISMISSED

*

Because Brown’s motion to reconsider was filed greater
than 28 days after the district court’s order dismissing his
civil action, the district court’s review was under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 60(b). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).

2