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)
10-7703•LARRY E. PATTERSON Plaintiff - Appellant, and ELMO A. REID, JR.; JAMES R. CLARK v. TIMOTHY M. KAINE, Governor of the State of Virginia, sued in his official
10-7703Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit05.07.2011
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-7703
LARRY E. PATTERSON
Plaintiff – Appellant,
and
ELMO A. REID, JR.; JAMES R. CLARK,
Plaintiffs,
v.
TIMOTHY M. KAINE, Governor of the State of Virginia, sued in
his official and individual capacity; JOHN W. MARSHALL,
Secretary of Public Safety of Virginia, sued in his official
and individual capacity; HELEN F. FAHEY, Chairperson of the
Virginia Parole Board, sued in her official and individual
capacity,
Defendants – Appellees,
___________________________
DEREK T. FRITZINGER; MELVIN C. DODSON,
Movants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief
District Judge. (3:08-cv-00490-JRS)
Submitted: June 30, 2011 Decided: July 5, 2011
Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
-- 1 of 3 --
2
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Larry E. Patterson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 2 of 3 --
3
PER CURIAM:
Larry E. Patterson appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion for relief judgment, filed pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 60(b). On appeal, we confine our review to the
issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).
Because Patterson’s informal brief does not challenge the basis
for the district court’s disposition, Patterson has forfeited
appellate review of the court’s order. Accordingly, we affirm
the district court’s judgment. 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.