Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Liggins v. William A. Hazel, Inc., 08-1772 (2009)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 08-1772 Visitors: 40
Filed: Oct. 23, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1772 KENNETH D. LIGGINS, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. WILLIAM A. HAZEL, INC.; DARRELL WOLFE; TOMMY SHELL; LASZLO ESZENYI, Defendants – Appellees. No. 08-1971 KENNETH D. LIGGINS, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. WILLIAM A. HAZEL, INC.; DARRELL WOLFE; TOMMY SHELL; LASZLO ESZENYI, Defendants – Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge.
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1772 KENNETH D. LIGGINS, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. WILLIAM A. HAZEL, INC.; DARRELL WOLFE; TOMMY SHELL; LASZLO ESZENYI, Defendants – Appellees. No. 08-1971 KENNETH D. LIGGINS, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. WILLIAM A. HAZEL, INC.; DARRELL WOLFE; TOMMY SHELL; LASZLO ESZENYI, Defendants – Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:07-cv-01084-LMB-JFA) Submitted: October 9, 2009 Decided: October 23, 2009 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kenneth D. Liggins, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Mark Dare, ISLER, DARE, RAY, RADCLIFFE & CONNOLLY, PC, Vienna, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Kenneth D. Liggins appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (2006) complaint and ordering him to pay attorneys fees and costs in the amount of $5,000. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Liggins’s motion to compel and we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Liggins v. William A. Hazel, Inc., No. 1:07-cv-01084-LMB-JFA (E.D. Va. filed June 20, 2008 & entered June 23, 2008; filed Aug. 8, 2008 & entered Aug. 11, 2008). 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