Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Henderson v. Commonwealth Atty Rockbridge, 04-1397 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-1397 Visitors: 7
Filed: Aug. 03, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1397 JEREMIAH HENDERSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY FOR ROCKBRIDGE COUNTY, VIRGINIA; ROCKBRIDGE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES; ROCKBRIDGE SQUARE ASSOCIATES LLC; SUNTRUST BANK, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (CA-02-55-6) Submitted: July 29, 2004 Decided: August 3, 2004 Before LUTT
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1397 JEREMIAH HENDERSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY FOR ROCKBRIDGE COUNTY, VIRGINIA; ROCKBRIDGE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES; ROCKBRIDGE SQUARE ASSOCIATES LLC; SUNTRUST BANK, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (CA-02-55-6) Submitted: July 29, 2004 Decided: August 3, 2004 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeremiah Henderson, Appellant Pro Se. Carlene Booth Johnson, PERRY & WINDELS, Dillwyn, Virginia; Walter Herbert Peake, III, Nancy Fuller Reynolds, FRITH, ANDERSON & PEAKE, Roanoke, Virginia; John Ray Alford, Jr., James Frederick Watson, CASKIE & FROST, Lynchburg, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Jeremiah Henderson appeals from the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion in which he sought reconsideration of the district court’s denial of his motion to reinstate his case and to file an amended 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Henderson v. Commonwealth Attorney for Rockbridge County, No. CA-02-55-6 (W.D. Va. Mar. 1, 2004). 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