The Law Lion Logo - AI-powered legal writing assistantThe Law Lion
Home
Features
Pricing
Services
AboutBlogCasesContactEarn with us
Login
Ask Law Lion AI
  1. Home
  2. >Cases
  3. >Austin v. Douglas G. Peterson & Associates
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Austin v. Douglas G. Peterson & Associates

No. 14-1578·Judge: Motz, Thacker, Wynn·Attorney: H. Richard Austin, Appellant Pro Se. George L. Goodridge, Curtiss, Carey, Gates, Graves & Goodridge, LLP, Greenfield, Massachusetts; Paul Marshall Yo-der, Wharton Aldhizer & Weaver, PLC, Harrisonburg, Virginia, for Appellees.0 citations·Filed October 20, 2014

Table of Contents

  • Summary of the case Austin v. Douglas G. Peterson & Associates
  • Key Issues of the case Austin v. Douglas G. Peterson & Associates
  • Key Facts of the case Austin v. Douglas G. Peterson & Associates
  • Decision of the case Austin v. Douglas G. Peterson & Associates
  • Opinions
  • Opinions
  • Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not bind...

Table of Contents

  • Summary of the case Austin v. Douglas G. Peterson & Associates
  • Key Issues of the case Austin v. Douglas G. Peterson & Associates
  • Key Facts of the case Austin v. Douglas G. Peterson & Associates
  • Decision of the case Austin v. Douglas G. Peterson & Associates
  • Opinions
  • Opinions
  • Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not bind...

Summary of the case Austin v. Douglas G. Peterson & Associates

H. Richard Austin appealed the district court's dismissal of his complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(d)(3) against the defendants. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's decision.

Key Issues of the case Austin v. Douglas G. Peterson & Associates

  • Dismissal of complaint under Rule 60(d)(3)
  • Review of reversible error

Key Facts of the case Austin v. Douglas G. Peterson & Associates

  • H. Richard Austin filed a complaint under Rule 60(d)(3)
  • The district court dismissed the complaint

Decision of the case Austin v. Douglas G. Peterson & Associates

Affirmed

Opinions

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: H. Richard Austin appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his complaint filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(d)(3) against Defendants. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Austin v. Douglas G. Peterson & Assocs., No. 5:13-cv-00877-BO, 2014 WL 1891419 (E.D.N.C.

May 12, 2014). 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.

The Law Lion logoThe Law Lion.

The Law Lion is the only platform combining AI legal writing grounded in real case law with an expert human writing service — serving attorneys, paralegals, and everyday people nationwide.

info@thelawlion.com
Mon–Fri 9am–6pm EST · Rush available
Serving Clients Nationwide

AI Tool

  • → AI Legal Writing Tool
  • → AI Document Drafting
  • → Motion Drafting
  • → Contract Drafting
  • → Legal Research
  • → Case Law Search
  • → Citation Generator
  • → Document Review
  • → Contract Review
  • → For Lawyers

Writing Service

  • → Eviction Defense
  • → Court Documents
  • → Custody & Family
  • → Divorce Documents
  • → Debt & Collections
  • → All Writing Services

Top Guides

  • → Eviction Response Guide
  • → Best AI Legal Tools 2026
  • → Debt Validation Letter Guide

Company

  • → About The Law Lion
  • → Client Results
  • → Transparent Pricing
  • → Legal Guides & Blog
  • → Contact & Free Consult
  • → Affiliate Program

Top Services

  • → Eviction Notice Response
  • → Debt Validation Letter
  • → Court Summons Response
© 2026 The Law Lion LLC · AI Legal Writing & Expert Document Service
Privacy PolicyTerms of ServiceSitemap