Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

McKoy v. Norfolk Redevlopment, 02-1854 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-1854 Visitors: 14
Filed: Sep. 27, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1854 BARBARA A. MCKOY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NORFOLK REDEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING AUTHORITY; RUBY HOOKS, Resource Manager; D.D. CASTRO ONEIL, Section 8 Program Specialist; CRENSHAW, WARE & MARTIN; ORION INVESTMENT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-02-268-2) Submitted: September 19, 2002 Decided:
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1854 BARBARA A. MCKOY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NORFOLK REDEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING AUTHORITY; RUBY HOOKS, Resource Manager; D.D. CASTRO ONEIL, Section 8 Program Specialist; CRENSHAW, WARE & MARTIN; ORION INVESTMENT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-02-268-2) Submitted: September 19, 2002 Decided: September 27, 2002 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Barbara A. McKoy, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Sue Morrissey, CRENSHAW, WARE & MARTIN, P.L.C., Norfolk, Virginia; Richard Ennis Biemiller, WOLCOTT, RIVERS, WHEARY, BASNIGHT & KELLY, P.C., Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Barbara A. McKoy appeals from the district court’s order dismissing her civil action alleging improper practices by the Defendants relating to her participation in a federal subsidized rent program. 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 McKoy v. Norfolk Redevelopment & Housing Auth., No. CA-02-268-2 (E.D. Va. filed July 12, 2002 & entered July 15, 2002). 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