Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Elite Child Inc v. Schroder Chesapeake, 98-2828 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-2828 Visitors: 3
Filed: Jun. 24, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2828 ELITE CHILD, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SCHRODER CHESAPEAKE, INCORPORATED, t/a Green- brier Mall; E. PRESTON GRISSOM, Individually and in his capacity of Judge, Judicial Circuit of Virginia, Circuit Court of the City of Chesapeake, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-98-4
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2828 ELITE CHILD, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SCHRODER CHESAPEAKE, INCORPORATED, t/a Green- brier Mall; E. PRESTON GRISSOM, Individually and in his capacity of Judge, Judicial Circuit of Virginia, Circuit Court of the City of Chesapeake, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-98-488-2) Submitted: June 17, 1999 Decided: June 24, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Luther C. Edmonds, LUTHER C. EDMONDS, ESQUIRE, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellant. Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, Gregory E. Lucyk, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Mary E. Shea, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia; Alan B. Rashkind, FURNISS, DAVIS, RASHKIND & SAUNDERS, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court’s order denying relief in this action alleging racial discrimination in the termination of a lease. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opin- ion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Elite Child, Inc. v. Schroder Chesapeake, Inc., No. CA-98-488-2 (E.D. Va. Nov. 10, 1999). 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