Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Clement v. LaHood, 10-1531 (2010)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 10-1531 Visitors: 23
Filed: Oct. 07, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1531 AUDREY CLEMENT; JOHN REEDER, Plaintiffs – Appellants, and JOSHUA RUEBNER, Plaintiff, v. RAY H. LAHOOD, U. S. Department of Transportation; VICTOR MENDEZ, Administrator Federal Highway Administration; ROBERTO FONSECO-MARTINEZ, Virginia Division Administrator, Federal Highway Administration; DAVID S. EKERN, Commissioner, Virginia Department of Transportation, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1531 AUDREY CLEMENT; JOHN REEDER, Plaintiffs – Appellants, and JOSHUA RUEBNER, Plaintiff, v. RAY H. LAHOOD, U. S. Department of Transportation; VICTOR MENDEZ, Administrator Federal Highway Administration; ROBERTO FONSECO-MARTINEZ, Virginia Division Administrator, Federal Highway Administration; DAVID S. EKERN, Commissioner, Virginia Department of Transportation, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:09-cv-01056-CMH-IDD) Submitted: August 17, 2010 Decided: October 7, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Audrey Clement, John Reeder, Appellants Pro Se. Allen M. Brabender, Bernard G. Kim, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; Christopher Dwight Eib, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Audrey Clement and John Reeder appeal the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the Government and dismissing Clement’s civil complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Clement and Reeder’s motion for a stay pending appeal and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Clement v. LaHood, No. 1:09-cv-01056-CMH-IDD (E.D. Va. Apr. 30, 2010). 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 3
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