Filed: Jun. 08, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1256 DIRECTV INCORPORATED, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LARRY KEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-03-321) Submitted: May 27, 2005 Decided: June 8, 2005 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Curtis T. Brown, LAW OFFICES OF CURTIS T. BROWN, Norfolk,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1256 DIRECTV INCORPORATED, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LARRY KEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-03-321) Submitted: May 27, 2005 Decided: June 8, 2005 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Curtis T. Brown, LAW OFFICES OF CURTIS T. BROWN, Norfolk, ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1256 DIRECTV INCORPORATED, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LARRY KEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-03-321) Submitted: May 27, 2005 Decided: June 8, 2005 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Curtis T. Brown, LAW OFFICES OF CURTIS T. BROWN, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. Elizabeth F. Edwards, Brian E. Pumphrey, MCGUIRE WOODS LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Larry Key appeals the magistrate judge’s orders imposing sanctions against Key’s counsel for discovery abuses.* We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See DIRECTV, Inc. v. Key, No. CA-03-321 (E.D. Va. Oct. 17 & Dec. 31, 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 * The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge. - 2 -
