Michael Nolan v. Matthew Hamidullah , 451 F. App'x 258 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 11-6070
    MICHAEL NOLAN,
    Plaintiff – Appellant,
    v.
    MATTHEW HAMIDULLAH; M. L. RIVERA; KATHRYN MACK; RAY HOLT;
    HARRELL WATTS; ALBERTO R. GONZALEZ; HARLEY G. LAPPIN;
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; BUREAU OF PRISONS, THE; JOHN DOE;
    MICHAEL B. MUKASEY,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Florence. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District
    Judge. (4:07-cv-01141-JFA)
    Submitted:   October 13, 2011              Decided:   October 20, 2011
    Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    J. Ashley Twombley, TWENGE & TWOMBLEY, Port Royal, South
    Carolina, for Appellant. Barbara Murcier Bowens, Assistant
    United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Michael        Nolan   appeals     four        orders     of    the    district
    court, challenging the district court’s determinations that the
    Federal    Bureau     of    Prisons     (“BOP”)       has       substantially      complied
    with a settlement agreement between the parties, finding all
    pending motions to be moot, and denying Nolan’s motions to alter
    or amend the judgment.             We review a district court’s decision
    regarding enforcement of a settlement agreement for abuse of
    discretion.        Williams v. Prof’l Transp., Inc., 
    388 F.3d 127
    , 131
    (4th Cir. 2004).         We also review the denial of a Fed. R. Civ. P.
    59(e)     motion    to     alter   or    amend        a     judgment       for    abuse   of
    discretion.        Sloas v. CSX Transp. Inc., 
    616 F.3d 380
    , 388 (4th
    Cir. 2010).         Having reviewed the district court’s orders, and
    finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm the decisions of the
    district court.          Accordingly, we deny Nolan’s motion to appoint
    counsel    and     affirm    the   judgment      of       the    district     court.      We
    dispense     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
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-6070

Citation Numbers: 451 F. App'x 258

Judges: Duncan, King, Motz, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 10/20/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/5/2023