896 F2d 1367 Oster v. W Sullivan P

896 F.2d 1367
Unpublished Disposition

Niels H. OSTER, M.D., Plaintiff-Appellant,
Louis W. SULLIVAN, Secretary, Department of Health and Human
Services; Richard P. Kusserow, Inspector General, United
States Department of Health and Human Services; and the
Medical Society of Virginia Review Organization, Inc.,

No. 88-2126.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 19, 1989.
Decided: Feb. 12, 1990.

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Niels H. Oster, appellant pro se.

Frederick Warren Beck, III, Steven D. Gravely, Seawell, Dalton, Hughes & Timms; Jessica Sanders Jones, Joseph Marvin Spivey, III, Hunton & Williams; Robert William Jaspen, Office of the United States Attorney, for appellees.

Before K.K. HALL, PHILLIPS and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges.


view counter

Dr. Niels Oster appeals the district court's denial of his motion for reconsideration pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) in connection with its denial of attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2142. The district court's denial of a Rule 60(b) motion may only be reversed upon a showing of abuse of discretion. Harman v. Pauley, 678 F.2d 479, 480-81 (4th Cir.1982). A Rule 60(b) motion will only be granted if the movant shows exceptional circumstances. Ackerman v. United States, 340 U.S. 193, 199-200 (1950); Werner v. Carbo, 731 F.2d 204, 206-07 (4th Cir.1982). Oster has shown no exceptional circumstances which would warrant granting his motion for reconsideration. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to reconsider its earlier order. Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the dispositive issues recently have been decided authoritatively.