Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Diedrich v. City of Newport News, 04-2399 (2005)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-2399 Visitors: 10
Filed: Apr. 15, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2399 JASON L. DIEDRICH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS, VIRGINIA; EDGAR E. MARONEY, individually and as City Manager of the City of Newport News; DENNIS A. MOOK, individually and as Chief of Police of the Newport News Police Department, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge.
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2399 JASON L. DIEDRICH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS, VIRGINIA; EDGAR E. MARONEY, individually and as City Manager of the City of Newport News; DENNIS A. MOOK, individually and as Chief of Police of the Newport News Police Department, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-04-9) Submitted: April 1, 2005 Decided: April 15, 2005 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jason L. Diedrich, Appellant Pro Se. Allen Link Jackson, Deputy City Attorney, Newport News, Virginia; Stanley Graves Barr, Jr., Shepherd Dean Wainger, KAUFMAN & CANOLES, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Jason L. Diedrich appeals the district court’s order denying his attorney’s motion to withdraw as counsel and awarding attorney fees to the City of Newport News. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Diedrich v. City of Newport News, No. CA-04-9 (E.D. Va. filed Nov. 29, 2004; entered Nov. 30, 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