Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Price v. McCormack, 01-2262 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-2262 Visitors: 16
Filed: Mar. 04, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-2262 WILLIE JAMES PRICE, Plaintiff - Appellant, and VALERIE YOUNG, Plaintiff, versus RONALD C. MCCORMACK, Attorney; EDWARD F. HALLORAN, Attorney; RUSSELL D. KNIGHT; GEORGE MILLESON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (CA-01-1212-A) Submitted: February 21, 2002 Decided: March 4, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ,
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-2262 WILLIE JAMES PRICE, Plaintiff - Appellant, and VALERIE YOUNG, Plaintiff, versus RONALD C. MCCORMACK, Attorney; EDWARD F. HALLORAN, Attorney; RUSSELL D. KNIGHT; GEORGE MILLESON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (CA-01-1212-A) Submitted: February 21, 2002 Decided: March 4, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Willie James Price, Appellant Pro Se. John Andrew Basham, HEILIG, MCKENRY, FRAIM & LOLLAR, Norfolk, Virginia; Charles Malcolm Lollar, TANNER, MULKEY, GORDON & LOLLAR, P.C., Norfolk, Virginia; Edward F. Halloran, Virginia Beach, Virginia; Russell D. Knight, Stafford, Virginia; George Milleson, Stafford, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Willie James Price appeals the district court’s order dis- missing his complaint for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. 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. See Price v. McCormack, No. CA-01-1212-A (E.D. Va. Oct. 3, 2001). We deny Appellees’ request for sanctions. 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