Allan Noah Spitzer, Petitioner-appellant, v. W. D. Blankenship; Attorney General of the Commonwealth Ofvirginia, Respondents-appellees, 8 F.3d 820 (4th Cir. 1993)
Annotate this CaseAppeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (CA-91-776-R)
Allan Noah Spitzer, Appellant Pro Se.
Richard Bain Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
W.D. Va.
DISMISSED.
Before HALL, PHILLIPS, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Allan Noah Spitzer seeks to appeal the district court's orders refusing habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) and denying his motion for reconsideration.* Our review of the record and the district court's opinions discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Spitzer v. Blankenship, No. CA-91-776-R (W.D. Va. July 21, 1992, Mar. 30, and Apr. 23, 1993). 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.
DISMISSED
The district court construed Sptizer's motion for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Since Spitzer's motion was served within ten days of the entry of judgment and called into question the correctness of the judgment, it should have been construed as a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). See Dove v. CODESCO, 569 F.2d 807, 809 (4th Cir. 1978); Dalton v. First Interstate Bank, 863 F.2d 702 (10th Cir. 1988). We nonetheless find that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
