Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Edmonds v. Grissom, 01-1403 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-1403 Visitors: 10
Filed: Jun. 08, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1403 LUTHER C. EDMONDS, Plaintiff - Appellant, and ELITE CHILD, INCORPORATED; SHERRY D. BATTLE, Plaintiffs, versus E. PRESTON GRISSOM, individually and in his capacity of Judge, Judicial Circuit of Virgin- ia, Circuit Court of the City of Chesapeake, Defendant - Appellee, and SCHRODER CHESAPEAKE, INCORPORATED, t/a Green- brier Mall, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virgin
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1403 LUTHER C. EDMONDS, Plaintiff - Appellant, and ELITE CHILD, INCORPORATED; SHERRY D. BATTLE, Plaintiffs, versus E. PRESTON GRISSOM, individually and in his capacity of Judge, Judicial Circuit of Virgin- ia, Circuit Court of the City of Chesapeake, Defendant - Appellee, and SCHRODER CHESAPEAKE, INCORPORATED, t/a Green- brier Mall, Defendant. 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: May 31, 2001 Decided: June 8, 2001 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Luther C. Edmonds, Appellant Pro Se. Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, Gregory E. Lucyk, Edward Meade Macon, Mary Elizabeth Shea, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Luther C. Edmonds appeals the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to set aside a prior order. Our review of the record and the district court’s opinion discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Edmonds v. Grissom, No. CA-98-488-2 (E.D. Va. Feb. 14, 2001). 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