# Calvin Brown v. Sears Holding Management Corp

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 20, 2016

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3205561

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** May 20, 2016
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3205561

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting review standard for Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) denial

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Calvin Earl Brown appeals the district court’s order

denying his second motion to reconsider the court’s earlier

order denying his civil action alleging employment

discrimination. 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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3205561. Public record. Not legal advice.