Opinions of the United
2009 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
3-6-2009
Lawrence Wilder Sr. v. Michael Tittle
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 08-2557
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009
Recommended Citation
"Lawrence Wilder Sr. v. Michael Tittle" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 1765.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/1765
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2009 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
BLD-76 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 08-2557
___________
LAWRENCE VERLINE WILDER, Sr.,
Appellant
v.
MICHAEL TITTLE; JANICE TITTLE; MONIQUE CELESTE THOMAS
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civil No. 98-03811)
District Judge: Honorable Dennis M. Cavanaugh
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Summary Action
Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
January 15, 2009
Before: MCKEE, FISHER and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: March 6, 2009)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Lawrence Verline Wilder, Sr., appeals from an order of the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey denying his motion to reopen his case that had been
dismissed in 1999.
Wilder filed the underlying action in 1998 in the District Court, and the docket
indicates that the presiding judge granted in forma pauperis status and dismissed his
complaint. Wilder appealed, and this Court affirmed in an opinion dated July 16, 1999.
On January 2, 2008, Wilder filed a motion to reopen his appeal, alleging that he was
unable to pursue his claim due to a disability.
The District Court determined that Wilder had failed to establish why his case
should be reopened, and we agree. Wilder asserts that he was unable to pursue his claim,
but that is not so because he completed an appeal before this Court. Nor does he explain
why he should be allowed to relitigate claims that were previously considered by both the
District Court and this Court.
Accordingly, Wilder’s appeal presents no substantial question, and we will
summarily affirm. Wilder’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied.
2