Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Marty Sons v. Judge Trompeter, 12-2376 (2013)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 12-2376 Visitors: 25
Filed: Mar. 08, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-2376 MARTY A. SONS; KITTY G. HYATT, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. JUDGE PHILIP TROMPETER, individually; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, his employer; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA; ROANOKE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, and their employees; MELVIN E. WILLIAMS, Attorney; FICTITIOUS DEFENDANTS A THROUGH E, whose names are unknown to plaintiffs at this time but will be added upon discovery of same, Defendan
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-2376 MARTY A. SONS; KITTY G. HYATT, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. JUDGE PHILIP TROMPETER, individually; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, his employer; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA; ROANOKE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, and their employees; MELVIN E. WILLIAMS, Attorney; FICTITIOUS DEFENDANTS A THROUGH E, whose names are unknown to plaintiffs at this time but will be added upon discovery of same, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James P. Jones, District Judge. (7:12-cv-00448-JPJ-PMS) Submitted: February 28, 2013 Decided: March 8, 2013 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marty A. Sons; Kitty G. Hyatt, Appellants Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Marty A. Sons and Kitty G. Hyatt appeal the district court’s order dismissing their civil complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Sons v. Trompeter, No. 7:12-cv-00448- JPJ-PMS (W.D. Va. Oct. 2, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 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