Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Brocco v. Savage, 01-1824 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-1824 Visitors: 3
Filed: Nov. 28, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1824 JAMES M. BROCCO; OLGA BROCCO, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus RICKY SAVAGE, Defendant - Appellee, and ED WOODARD; COUNTY OF FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA; THE FITNESS COMPANY; HYATT CORPORATION, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-00-1685-A) Submitted: November 19, 2001 Decided: November 28, 2001 Before WIDENE
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1824 JAMES M. BROCCO; OLGA BROCCO, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus RICKY SAVAGE, Defendant - Appellee, and ED WOODARD; COUNTY OF FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA; THE FITNESS COMPANY; HYATT CORPORATION, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-00-1685-A) Submitted: November 19, 2001 Decided: November 28, 2001 Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Victor M. Glasberg, Kelly M. Baldrate, VICTOR M. GLASBERG & ASSO- CIATES, Alexandria, Virginia; Henry W. Asbill, William B. Moffitt, ASBILL, JUNKIN, MOFFITT & BOSS, CHTD., Washington, D.C., for Appellants. David J. Fudala, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: James and Olga Brocco appeal the district court’s order deny- ing relief on their 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Brocco v. Savage, No. CA-00-1685-A (E.D. Va. May 18, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials 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