The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
02-2212•Charles M. Persson v. Credit Bureau of Southern Virginia, Incorporated
02-2212Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitNov 27, 2002
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-2212
CHARLES M. PERSSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
CREDIT BUREAU OF SOUTHERN VIRGINIA,
INCORPORATED,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
AMERICREDIT FINANCIAL SERVICES, INCORPORATED;
REGIONAL ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION; VICTORY
NISSAN OF RICHMOND, INCORPORATED,
Parties in Interest.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
District Judge. (MC-02-8-3)
Submitted: November 21, 2002 Decided: November 27, 2002
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles M. Persson, Appellant Pro Se.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Charles Persson appeals from orders of the District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia denying Persson’s requests for the
issuance of a subpoena relating to a complaint he filed in the
District Court for the Western District of Virginia. He also asks
this court to direct the Western District to hold his case in
abeyance pending resolution of this appeal. Our review of the
record and the pertinent district court dockets reveals that
Persson’s underlying complaint was dismissed with prejudice in the
Western District following a settlement reached by the parties.
This action renders Persson’s claim before this court no longer
justiciable. Accordingly, we deny Persson’s motion to direct that
his case be held in abeyance, and we dismiss the appeal as moot.
See Leonard v. Hammond, 804 F.2d 838, 842 (4th Cir. 1986). 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.
DISMISSED
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.