Filed: Aug. 17, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1221 MAX MONROE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CITY OF RICHMOND, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-03-914-3) Submitted: August 12, 2004 Decided: August 17, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Max Monroe, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Michae
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1221 MAX MONROE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CITY OF RICHMOND, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-03-914-3) Submitted: August 12, 2004 Decided: August 17, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Max Monroe, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Michael..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1221 MAX MONROE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CITY OF RICHMOND, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-03-914-3) Submitted: August 12, 2004 Decided: August 17, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Max Monroe, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Michael Barnett, CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Max Monroe appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his civil action alleging violations of the American with Disabilities Act. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Monroe v. City of Richmond, No. CA-03-914-3 (E.D. Va. Feb. 2, 2004). 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 -
