Arthur Gooden, II v. US, No. 14-1129 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1129 ARTHUR LEE GOODEN, II, Plaintiff Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA; TONYA R. HENDERSON-STITH; CHRISTOPHER W. HUTTON; BONNIE L. JONES; TIMOTHY FISHER; VINCENT H. CONWAY; ALBERT PATRICK; GARY MILLS; BRYANT LEE SUGG; RICHARD KURNS; ALFRED MASTERS; PAMELA JONES; WILLIAM H. SHAW; PETER TRENCH; MATHEWS; NELSON T. OVERTON; JANE & JOHN DOES, 1-100; JANE & JOHN DOES, A-Z (all officers of the Commonwealth of Virginia); JANE & JOHN DOES, I-X; JANE & JOHN DOES, A-Z (all officers of the United States), Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (4:13-cv-00126-MSD-TEM) Submitted: May 5, 2014 Decided: May 21, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Arthur Lee Gooden, II, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Arthur Lee Gooden, II, appeals the district court s order denying dismissing his his motion civil post-judgment filings. for reconsideration complaint and of its denying order multiple On review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief pursuant to either Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) or Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) and did not err in declining to grant Gooden s other post-judgment demands. See Robinson v. Wix Filtration Corp., 599 F.3d 403, 407 (4th Cir. 2010) (standard of review for Rule 59(e)); MLC Auto., LLC v. Town of S. Pines, 532 F.3d 269, 277 (4th Cir. 2008) (standard of review for Rule 60(b)). Accordingly, we affirm based on the reasoning of the district court. Gooden v. United States, No. 4:13-cv-00126-MSD-TEM (E.D. Va. filed Dec. 6 & entered Dec. 9, 2013). We deny Gooden s motion to seal the attachment to his motion filed on April 15, 2014. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 2

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.