Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Brooks v. Harris, 04-1419 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-1419 Visitors: 18
Filed: May 21, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1419 MARY BROWN BROOKS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FRANK HARRIS, Defendant - Appellee, versus R. MAPLES, In Re: Subpoena Duces Tecum Served: Custodian of Records, Labor Relations Office, United States Postal Service, Movant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-04-91) Submitted: May 3, 2004 Decided: May 2
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1419 MARY BROWN BROOKS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FRANK HARRIS, Defendant - Appellee, versus R. MAPLES, In Re: Subpoena Duces Tecum Served: Custodian of Records, Labor Relations Office, United States Postal Service, Movant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-04-91) Submitted: May 3, 2004 Decided: May 21, 2004 Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mary Brown Brooks, Appellant Pro Se. Robert P. McIntosh, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Movant - Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Mary Brown Brooks appeals from the district court order granting the Government’s motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum issued by a state court upon a federal employee in his official capacity. We have reviewed the record and the district court order and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Brooks v. Harris, No. CA-04-91 (E.D. Va. Apr. 7, 2004). We deny the motion to expedite the appeal. 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 - 3 -
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