Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Trump Tight, LLC v. Raymond Bell, 16-1697 (2017)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 16-1697 Visitors: 3
Filed: May 04, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1697 TRUMP TIGHT, LLC, d/b/a Trump Restaurant, and Lounge, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. RAYMOND R. BELL; VINCENT B. GIVENS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:15-cv-00175-JAG) Submitted: April 13, 2017 Decided: May 4, 2017 Before MOTZ, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam op
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1697 TRUMP TIGHT, LLC, d/b/a Trump Restaurant, and Lounge, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. RAYMOND R. BELL; VINCENT B. GIVENS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:15-cv-00175-JAG) Submitted: April 13, 2017 Decided: May 4, 2017 Before MOTZ, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Andrew T. Bodoh, THOMAS H. ROBERTS & ASSOCIATES PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Carlene Booth Johnson, PERRY LAW FIRM, Dillwyn, Virginia; William F. Etherington, Leslie A. Winneberger, BEALE, DAVIDSON, ETHERINGTON & MORRIS, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Trump Tight, LLC, appeals the district court’s order and judgment granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Trump Tight, LLC v. Bell, No. 3:15-cv- 00175-JAG (E.D. Va. May 18, 2016). We deny as moot Appellees’ motion for leave to file supplemental material. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 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