Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Lewis v. Commonwealth of VA, 00-1792 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-1792 Visitors: 29
Filed: Nov. 22, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1792 WILLIAM M. LEWIS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; CANTOR & CANTOR, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-00-156-3) Submitted: October 31, 2000 Decided: November 22, 2000 Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1792 WILLIAM M. LEWIS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; CANTOR & CANTOR, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-00-156-3) Submitted: October 31, 2000 Decided: November 22, 2000 Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William M. Lewis, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Edward Meade Macon, Kevin Osborne Barnard, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia; Douglas Pendleton Rucker, Jr., Jeffrey Hamilton Geiger, SANDS, ANDERSON, MARKS & MILLER, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: William M. Lewis, Jr., appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his action and denying his motion for recusal and for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Lewis v. Virginia, No. CA-00-156-3 (E.D. Va. June 1 & July 14, 2000). We deny Lewis’s motions for general relief in which he seeks a jury trial, recusal of the district judge, an order summarily overturning the district court’s order, and con- sideration of additional exhibits. 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 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer