Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Royo v. Commonwealth of VA, 96-1473 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-1473 Visitors: 18
Filed: Jul. 30, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1473 FRANCISCO JAVIER ROYO, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA JUDICIARY SYSTEM; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES; INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-96-161-R) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: July 30, 1996 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Cir
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1473 FRANCISCO JAVIER ROYO, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA JUDICIARY SYSTEM; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES; INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-96-161-R) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: July 30, 1996 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion. Francisco Javier Royo, Appellant Pro Se. Raymond Lee Doggett, Jr., OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Francisco Javier Royo appeals the district court's order granting the Commonwealth of Virginia's motion to dismiss on behalf of itself and the Virginia Department of Social Services, and dis- missing Royo's complaint with prejudice against all Defendants. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. We affirm the district court's grant of the Commonwealth of Virginia's motion to dismiss on the reasoning of the district court. However, we affirm the dismissal of Royo's claims against the Internal Revenue Service with the modification that the dismissal is without preju- dice. We further deny Royo's motion for general relief and his motion for injunction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED 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