Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Milam v. City of Danville VA, 00-2573 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-2573 Visitors: 15
Filed: Apr. 17, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2573 DUDLEY MILAM, JR., on behalf of my wife, Ola M. Milam, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CITY OF DANVILLE, VIRGINIA, by and through its Division of Social Services; BETTY T. ROGERS, Supervisor of Adult Services; JERRELL TOMMY SPENCER, Adult Services; DALE M. WILEY, Attor- ney and guardian of Ola M. Milam, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Danvill
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2573 DUDLEY MILAM, JR., on behalf of my wife, Ola M. Milam, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CITY OF DANVILLE, VIRGINIA, by and through its Division of Social Services; BETTY T. ROGERS, Supervisor of Adult Services; JERRELL TOMMY SPENCER, Adult Services; DALE M. WILEY, Attor- ney and guardian of Ola M. Milam, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Danville. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (CA-00-56-4) Submitted: April 12, 2001 Decided: April 17, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dudley Milam, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Jeremy E. Carroll, DANIEL, VAUGHAN, MEDLEY & SMITHERMAN, P.C., Danville, Virginia; Carlene Booth Johnson, PERRY & WINDELS, Dillwyn, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Dudley Milam, Jr. appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his civil action as barred by the applicable statute of limitations. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Milam v. City of Danville, No. CA-00-56-4 (W.D. Va. Nov. 29, 2000). 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