Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Edmonds v. Grissom, 02-1458 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-1458 Visitors: 66
Filed: Sep. 27, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1458 LUTHER C. EDMONDS, Movant - Appellant, and ELITE CHILD, INCORPORATED; SHERRY D. BATTLE, Plaintiffs, versus E. PRESTON GRISSOM, individually and in his capacity of Judge, Judicial Circuit of Virginia, Circuit Court of the City of Chesapeake, Defendant - Appellee, and SCHRODER CHESAPEAKE, INCORPORATED, t/a Greenbrier Mall, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at No
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1458 LUTHER C. EDMONDS, Movant - Appellant, and ELITE CHILD, INCORPORATED; SHERRY D. BATTLE, Plaintiffs, versus E. PRESTON GRISSOM, individually and in his capacity of Judge, Judicial Circuit of Virginia, Circuit Court of the City of Chesapeake, Defendant - Appellee, and SCHRODER CHESAPEAKE, INCORPORATED, t/a Greenbrier Mall, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-98-488) Submitted: September 19, 2002 Decided: September 27, 2002 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Luther C. Edmonds, Appellant Pro Se. Edward Meade Macon, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Luther C. Edmonds appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion to reconsider prior orders dismissing his civil action and imposing sanctions against him. Our review of the record and the district court’s opinion discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Edmonds v. Grissom, No. CA-98-488 (E.D. Va. Mar. 27, 2002). 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