Charlie Richardson seeks to appeal two postjudgment orders of the magistrate judge. * He moved the court to reconsider a complaint dismissed in 1997, to enforce a settlement agreement rejected by the court at that time, and to recuse two attorneys. The magistrate judge denied those motions, as well as a subsequent motion to set aside the judgment and enlarge Richardson’s time.

Richardson filed these motions almost six years after this court affirmed the ruling that Richardson seeks to set aside. We find that the magistrate judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the motions. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge. Richardson v. Cabarrus County Bd. of Educ., No. CA-94-416-3-H (W.D.N.C. Jan. 8, 2004, Feb. 12, 2004). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED