
    Josephat MUA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY, MARYLAND; Verjeana M. Jacobs, Individually and as Board Chairperson of Prince George’s Public Schools; Dr. William R. Hite, Jr., Individually and as superintendent; Roger Cole Thomas, Esquire; Synthia Shilling; Monica Goldson, Individually and as Associates superintendent of Prince George’s Public Schools; American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, AFSCME; Association of Classified Employees/American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees; Pierre Dickson, Individually and as agent of the Board of Education of Prince George’s County; Dr. Kevin Maxwell, Individually and as superintendent of Prince George’s Public Schools; Dr. Alvin Crawley, Individually and as superintendent; Robert J. Gaskin, Individually and Chief Human Resources of Prince George’s Public Schools; Dr. Lillian M. Lowery; Ardra Monique O’Neal; Abbey G. Hairston, Defendants-Appellees.
    
      No. 17-2027
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: February 22, 2018
    Decided: February 26, 2018
    Josephat Mua, Appellant Pro Se. Judith E. Rivlin, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY & MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, Washington, D.C.; Mark James Murphy, MOONEY, GREEN, SAINDON, MURPHY & WELCH, PC, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.
    Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Josephat Mua appeals the district court’s order denying his self-styled motion to reopen his civil case against several defendants, and also challenges the district court’s decision to return to Mua a subsequently filed motion for reconsideration. Mua has also filed motions to proceed in forma pauperis, to exceed the length limitations for his informal brief, and to file amended and supplemental briefs. We have reviewed the record and discern no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant the pending motions and affirm the district court’s order. See Mua v. Bd. of Educ. of Prince George’s Cty., Md., No. 8:15-cv-02249-PJM (D. Md. Aug. 2, 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 
      
       We discern no reversible error in the district court’s refusal to entertain Mua’s motion for reconsideration.
     