Opinion
No. 19-1861
05-19-2020
ERIC ALAN SANDERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC, Defendant - Appellee, and EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION; JOHN HAYWARD; MIKE CALZAREETA; DOUG FORD; RAYVON IRBY, Defendants.
Eric Alan Sanders, Appellant Pro Se. William Grayson Lambert, Richard James Morgan, BURR & FORMAN, LLP, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (0:15-cv-02313-JMC) Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eric Alan Sanders, Appellant Pro Se. William Grayson Lambert, Richard James Morgan, BURR & FORMAN, LLP, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Eric Alan Sanders appeals the district court's order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 motion. We review the district court's order for abuse of discretion, Aikens v. Ingram, 652 F.3d 496, 501 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc), and we "may affirm a district court's ruling on any ground apparent in the record," United States ex rel Drakeford v. Tuomey, 792 F.3d 364, 375 (4th Cir. 2015). Sanders either sought to relitigate matters that the district court and this Court previously decided or raise new issues that should have been raised prior to judgment or on direct appeal, neither of which is permissible in a Rule 60 motion. See Aikens, 652 F.3d at 501 (recognizing litigant may not raise an issue in a Rule 60 motion that could have been addressed on direct appeal); CNF Constructors, Inc. v. Donohoe Const. Co., 57 F.3d 395, 401 (4th Cir. 1995) (explaining that, "where a motion is for reconsideration of legal issues already addressed in an earlier ruling, the motion is not authorized by Rule 60(b)" (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Therefore, we affirm the district court's order. 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