Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Michael Scott v. City of Virginia Beach, 12-2578 (2013)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 12-2578 Visitors: 5
Filed: May 02, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-2578 MICHAEL A. SCOTT, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH; KENNETH W. STOLLE; PAUL J. LANTEIGNE; F. V. WILLIAMS; SYLVESTER WILLIAMS; JOHN NEWTON; CASSANDRA LEE; STEVE WILKE; J. MANIGO; JOHN DOE; MARC F. SCHUSTER; VICTORIA THOMSON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:10-cv-00625-RAJ-DEM) Sub
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-2578 MICHAEL A. SCOTT, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH; KENNETH W. STOLLE; PAUL J. LANTEIGNE; F. V. WILLIAMS; SYLVESTER WILLIAMS; JOHN NEWTON; CASSANDRA LEE; STEVE WILKE; J. MANIGO; JOHN DOE; MARC F. SCHUSTER; VICTORIA THOMSON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:10-cv-00625-RAJ-DEM) Submitted: April 19, 2013 Decided: May 2, 2013 Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael A Scott, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Beverly, CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Virginia Beach, Virginia; David Brandt Oakley, POOLE MAHONEY PC, Chesapeake, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael A. Scott appeals the district court orders and judgment granting the Defendants’ motions to dismiss, denying his motion to amend the complaint and denying reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s orders and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Scott v. City of Virginia Beach, No. 2:10-cv-00625-RAJ- DEM (E.D. Va., Sept. 29, 2011; April 4, 2012; Nov. 27, 2012). 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