Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Mitchell v. GE American Spacenet, 96-2624 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-2624 Visitors: 7
Filed: May 07, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2624 BRIAN MITCHELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus G.E. AMERICAN SPACENET, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-96-969) Submitted: May 1, 1997 Decided: May 7, 1997 Before WIDENER and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Brian Mitchell
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2624 BRIAN MITCHELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus G.E. AMERICAN SPACENET, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-96-969) Submitted: May 1, 1997 Decided: May 7, 1997 Before WIDENER and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Brian Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se. Thomasenia Patricia Duncan, COVINGTON & BURLING, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his complaint for damages under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 12101-12213 (West 1995), "Privacy Act of 1974," 5 U.S.C. § 552(a) (1994), and under the common law action of defama- tion of character. The district court properly dismissed the claim under the ADA and for defamation of character without prejudice because Mitchell did not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 by failing to provide a short and plain statement of the claim. The district court properly dismissed the claim under the Privacy Act because the Defendant is a private corporation and not an agency subject to suit under the Act. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(f) (1994). We therefore af- firm the district court order. Mitchell v. G.E. American Spacenet, No. CA-96-969 (E.D. Va. Oct. 9, 1996). We dispense with oral argu- ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre- sented 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