Michael Scott v. Norfolk Southern Corporation

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999787344-2]. Originating case number: 2:95-cv-00377-RBS. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999898143]. Mailed to: Michael Scott. [16-1227, 16-1228]

Appeal: 16-1227

Doc: 21

Filed: 07/27/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1227

MICHAEL A. SCOTT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
NORFOLK SOUTHERN CORPORATION; KENNETH E. WILLIAM; STEVEN G.
JACKSON; ELIAS I. VEGA,
Defendants - Appellees.

No. 16-1228

MICHAEL A. SCOTT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
NORFOLK SOUTHERN CORPORATION,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief
District Judge. (2:95-cv-00377-RBS; 2:95-cv-00815-RBS)

Submitted:

July 19, 2016

Decided:

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

July 27, 2016

Appeal: 16-1227

Doc: 21

Filed: 07/27/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael A. Scott, Appellant Pro Se.
Samuel Johnson Webster,
WILLCOX & SAVAGE, PC, Norfolk, Virginia; Roy Barrow Blackwell,
Hunter Wilmer Sims, Jr., KAUFMAN & CANOLES, PC, Norfolk,
Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 16-1227

Doc: 21

Filed: 07/27/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Michael A. Scott appeals the
district court’s orders denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4)
motion and his motion for reconsideration.

We grant Scott’s

motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

We have reviewed

the record and affirm for the reasons cited by the district
court.

Scott v. Norfolk S. Corp., No. 2:95-cv-00377-RBS; 2:95-

cv-00815-RBS (E.D. Va. Jan. 22, 2016; Feb. 22, 2016).
the

Appellees’

motion

for

sanctions.

We

dispense

We deny
with

oral

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

3