Full text
Gamble v. United Parcel Svc
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-1302
BARBARA GAMBLE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INCORPORATED,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
RICHARD MINUTELLA,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA- 96-664-CCB)
Submitted: August 29, 1997 Decided: September 24, 1997 Before HALL, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Norris C. Ramsey, Sherrie T. Howell-Young, NORRIS C. RAMSEY, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Emmett F. McGee, Jr., Patricia A. Sumner, PIPER & MARBURY, L.L.P., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Barbara Gamble appeals the district court's order denying her
motion, filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6), to alter or amend the court's previous order granting summary judgment to her former
employer and dismissing her employment discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the
Rule 60(b) motion. See In re Burnley, 988 F.2d 1, 3 (4th Cir. 1992) (holding that in an appeal from a Rule 60(b) denial, the appellate
court may not review the merits of the underlying orderCit may only review the denial of the 60(b) for an abuse of discretion). Accordingly, we affirm. 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.