Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Moore v. Richmond Nursing Home, 05-2399 (2006)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 05-2399 Visitors: 20
Filed: Mar. 28, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-2399 CLARENCE MOORE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RICHMOND NURSING HOME; BORIS T. SIMMONS, Police Officer, 1312-6, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-99-683) Submitted: March 23, 2006 Decided: March 28, 2006 Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per c
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-2399 CLARENCE MOORE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RICHMOND NURSING HOME; BORIS T. SIMMONS, Police Officer, 1312-6, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-99-683) Submitted: March 23, 2006 Decided: March 28, 2006 Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clarence Moore, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Michael Barnett, CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: In this civil action, Clarence Moore appeals the district court’s orders: (1) denying his motion to reopen, to “reinstate the case in the same position as before dismissal,” and for a new trial; and (2) denying his motion to file a supplemental answer. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Moore v. Richmond Nursing Home, No. CA-99-683 (E.D. Va. Dec. 1, 2005; Dec. 9, 2005). We deny Moore’s pending motion to supplement the record. 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