UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-1633
In re: RANDY MCRAE,
Appellant.
__________________________
JOSEPH MICHAEL CREED, Attorney-Investigator,
Party-in-Interest.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:16-mc-00011)
Submitted: October 31, 2017 Decided: February 14, 2018
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and KEENAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Antoini Martin Jones, Largo, Maryland, for Appellant.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Randy McRae appeals from the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P.
59(e), 60(b)(1), (6) motion to vacate the court’s prior order disbarring him from the
practice of law before that court. We have reviewed the record and McRae’s corrected
brief and find no reversible error. *
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying McRae’s request for relief
under Rule 59(e). See Mayfield v. Nat’l Ass’n for Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc., 674 F.3d
369, 378 (4th Cir. 2012) (stating standard of review). The request was not timely filed
under the rule, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), and did not invoke an intervening change in
controlling law, new evidence not available prior to the entry of the disbarment order, or
a clear legal error. See Mayfield, 674 F.3d at 378 (setting forth grounds for granting a
Rule 59(e) motion). We further conclude that McRae has not established a manifest
injustice warranting the granting of Rule 59(e) relief. See id.; Robinson v. Wix Filtration
Corp. LLC, 599 F.3d 403, 408-09 (4th Cir. 2010).
The district court also did not abuse its discretion in denying McRae’s request for
relief under Rule 60(b)(1) and (6). See MLC Auto., LLC v. Town of S. Pines, 532 F.3d
269, 277 (4th Cir. 2008) (stating standard of review). The request did not establish
excusable neglect under Rule 60(b)(1), see Robinson, 599 F.3d at 413, or extraordinary
circumstances warranting relief under Rule 60(b)(6). See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759,
777-78 (2017). McRae’s arguments on appeal do not alter these conclusions.
*
We grant McRae’s motion for leave to file a corrected and amended brief.
2
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. In re McRae, No. 1:16-mc-00011
(D. Md. Apr. 12, 2017). 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
3