John Kimble v. Rajesh Rajpal, No. 14-1538 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1538 JOHN B. KIMBLE, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. RAJESH K. RAJPAL, M.D.; RAJESH K. RAJPAL, trading as See Clearly Vision Group, L.L.C., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:13-cv-00298-CMH-IDD) Submitted: October 30, 2014 Before NIEMEYER and Senior Circuit Judge. THACKER, Decided: Circuit November 14, 2014 Judges, and HAMILTON, John B. Kimble, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Clyde COWDREY THOMPSON PC, Easton, Maryland, for Appellees. Marriner, Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: John B. Kimble filed a civil action against Rajesh K. Rajpal, M.D., and related corporate parties, asserting Virginia tort law claims under diversity jurisdiction. The district court dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction and denied Kimble’s subsequent Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion seeking relief from that judgment. Kimble appealed, and we affirmed. Kimble v. Rajpal, 566 F. App’x 261, 263-64 (4th Cir. 2014) (Nos. 13-2140, 14-1024). After our opinion issued, Kimble filed a motion and amended motion “to reinstate and substitute parties,” which the district court denied. Kimble also filed a Rule 59(e) motion of seeking reconsideration that order. Kimble now appeals the orders denying these post-appeal motions. We review these orders for abuse of discretion. See Equal Rights Ctr. v. Niles Bolton Assocs., 602 F.3d 597, 603 (4th Cir. 2010); Robinson v. Wix Filtration Corp., 599 F.3d 403, 407 (4th Cir. 2010). Our review of the record demonstrates no abuse of discretion, as Kimble was not entitled to reinstate his claims with new parties or to continue the litigation on its merits following our opinion affirming its dismissal. Insofar as Kimble’s informal brief raises claims unrelated to the orders at issue in this appeal, these arguments are not properly before us. 2 Accordingly, We dispense contentions with are oral we affirm argument adequately the district because presented in court’s orders. the facts and the materials legal before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3