Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
04-1231•Jonathon Moseley v. Dianna Price, individually
04-1231Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit23.08.2004
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1231
JONATHON MOSELEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
DIANNA PRICE, individually and as Secretary of
the Loudoun County Electoral Board; JEAN
JENSEN, individually and as Secretary of the
Virginia State Board of Elections;
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, a State covered
under Section 5 of the Federal Voting Rights
Act of 1965, by its Governor Mark Warner;
ANDREW PARKER, individually and as Assistant
Commonwealth Attorney for the County of
Arlington; ROBERT ANDERSON, "Bob"; TIM JOHNS,
individually but found at WAGE Radio,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District
Judge. (CA-03-1320-A)
Submitted: August 13, 2004 Decided: August 23, 2004
Before TRAXLER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
-- 1 of 3 --
- 2 -
Jonathon Moseley, Appellant Pro Se. John Adrian Gibney, Jr.,
THOMPSON & MCMULLAN, Richmond, Virginia, James Christian Stuchell,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia;
Alexander Francuzenko, O’CONNELL, O’CONNELL & SARSFIELD, Rockville,
Maryland; Robert Theodore Mitchell, Jr., Winchester, Virginia, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 2 of 3 --
- 3 -
PER CURIAM:
Jonathon Moseley appeals from the district court’s order
dismissing his civil complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. See Moseley v. Price, No. CA-03-1320-A (E.D. Va.
filed Jan. 22, 2004 & entered Jan. 23, 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
-- 3 of 3 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.