746 Fed.Appx. 213 (4th Cir. 2018), 18-1480, Claiborne v. Greenville South Carolina
|Citation:||746 Fed.Appx. 213|
|Opinion Judge:||PER CURIAM.|
|Party Name:||Glen Earl CLAIBORNE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GREENVILLE SOUTH CAROLINA, City of; Greenlink, Defendants-Appellees, and Robert Dowling; Louis Beason; Deborah Gravely; Athena Miller; Rick Birdwell; Steven Chasten; Mark Richards; Scoot McIver, Defendants.|
|Attorney:||Glen Earl Claiborne, Appellant Pro Se. Ross B. Plyler, ROE, CASSIDY, COATES & PRICE, PA, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellees.|
|Judge Panel:||Before MOTZ, HARRIS, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||December 21, 2018|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit|
Submitted: October 31, 2018
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.(See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (6:16-cv-02910-TMC)
Glen Earl Claiborne, Appellant Pro Se.
Ross B. Plyler, ROE, CASSIDY, COATES & PRICE, PA, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before MOTZ, HARRIS, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
In May 2017, the district court dismissed Glen Earl Claibornes employment discrimination action upon concluding that the parties had reached a settlement agreement. Claiborne then filed motions
tat the district court interpreted as a Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion to reopen, and Defendants filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement. The district court denied Claibornes motions and granted Defendants motion to enforce. Claiborne appeals.
We review both the decision to enforce the settlement agreement and the decision to deny Claibornes Rule 60(b) motion for abuse of discretion. See Aikens v. Ingram, 652 F.3d 496, 501 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (Rule 60(b) standard of review); Hensley v. Alcon Labs., Inc., 277 F.3d 535, 541 (4th Cir. 2002) (enforcement of settlement standard of review). A district court abuses its discretion "only where it has acted arbitrarily or irrationally, has failed to consider judicially recognized factors constraining its...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP