Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Spence v. Fraim, 98-1918 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-1918 Visitors: 30
Filed: Sep. 11, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1918 KEITH K. SPENCE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PAUL FRAIM, Mayor of the City of Norfolk; JAMES B. OLIVER, City Manager of Norfolk, Vir- ginia; HERBERT COLLINS, SR., Norfolk City Council; SHERMAN C. EDMONDSON, Director, Code Enforcement of the City of Norfolk; RON FILER, Code Enforcement, City of Norfolk, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfol
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1918 KEITH K. SPENCE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PAUL FRAIM, Mayor of the City of Norfolk; JAMES B. OLIVER, City Manager of Norfolk, Vir- ginia; HERBERT COLLINS, SR., Norfolk City Council; SHERMAN C. EDMONDSON, Director, Code Enforcement of the City of Norfolk; RON FILER, Code Enforcement, City of Norfolk, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-97-1136-2) Submitted: August 27, 1998 Decided: September 11, 1998 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Keith K. Spence, Appellant Pro Se. Harold Phillip Juren, Deputy City Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Keith Spence appeals from the district court’s orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Ac- cordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Spence v. Fraim, No. CA-97-1136-2 (E.D. Va. Mar. 5 and May 19, 1998). 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