WILLIAMSON v. PA (2019)

Curtis Williamson appeals the district court's orders granting summary judgment against him in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action, denying his motions for counsel, and denying Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) relief. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Williamson v. Graham, No. 1:17-cv-01915-GLR, 2018 WL 4620335 (D. Md. Sept. 26, 2018); see also Mayfield v. Nat'l Ass'n for Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc., 674 F.3d 369, 378 (4th Cir. 2012) (stating standard of review for denial of Rule 59(e) motion); Whisenant v. Yuam, 739 F.2d 160, 163 (4th Cir. 1984) (stating standard of review for denial of counsel), abrogated on other grounds by Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 104 L.Ed.2d 318 (1989). 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.

AFFIRMED

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.