746 Fed.Appx. 213 (4th Cir. 2018), 18-1480, Claiborne v. Greenville South Carolina

Docket Nº:18-1480
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
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 213

746 Fed.Appx. 213 (4th Cir. 2018)

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.

No. 18-1480

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

December 21, 2018

UNPUBLISHED

Submitted: October 31, 2018

Editorial Note:

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.(See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

In May 2017, the district court dismissed Glen Earl Claiborne’s employment discrimination action upon concluding that the parties had reached a settlement agreement. Claiborne then filed motions

Page 214

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 Claiborne’s motions and granted Defendants’ motion to enforce. Claiborne appeals.

We review both the decision to enforce the settlement agreement and the decision to deny Claiborne’s 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 reading

FREE SIGN UP