Pritchard v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc, 4th Cir. (2001)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsPritchard v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc, 4th Cir. (2001)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-1846
ELLEN PRITCHARD,
Evans,
formerly
known
as
Ellen
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
WAL-MART STORES, INCORPORATED,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-99-395-3-17)
Submitted:
December 15, 2000
Decided:
February 7, 2001
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles L. Griffin, III, Kristi F. Curtis, BRYAN, BAHNMULLER,
GOLDMAN & MCELVEEN, L.L.P., Sumter, South Carolina, for Appellant.
J.R. Murphy, J.J. Gentry, MURPHY & GRANTLAND, P.A., Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Ellen Pritchard, formerly Ellen Evans, appeals the district
courts orders granting summary judgment to the Defendant and
denying her motion for reconsideration on her claims of false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and defamation.
The cause of action was removed to district court based on
diversity of citizenship.
We have reviewed the record and the
district courts opinion de novo.
See Higgins v. E.I. DuPont de
Nemours & Co., 863 F.2d 1162, 1167 (4th Cir. 1988).
Finding no
reversible error, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.
See Pritchard v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. CA-99-395-3-17 (D.S.C.
May 26, 2000).
We review the denial of the motion for reconsideration for
abuse of discretion.
United States v. Holland, 214 F.3d 523, 527
(4th Cir. 2000); Collison v. International Chem. Workers Union, 34
F.3d 233, 236 (4th Cir. 1994).
When the motion raises no new
arguments, but merely requests the district court to reconsider a
legal issue or to change its mind, relief is not authorized.
United States v. Williams, 674 F.2d 310, 312 (4th Cir. 1982).
We
have reviewed the record as to the motion for reconsideration and
we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.
We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate-
ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
