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)
03-1942•William Maxwell Lewis, Jr v. Ugly Duckling Car Sales
03-1942Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitFeb 13, 2004
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1942
WILLIAM MAXWELL LEWIS, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
UGLY DUCKLING CAR SALES; COMMONWEALTH OF
VIRGINIA, Henrico County; HANOVER COUNTY,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
District Judge. (CA-02-741)
Submitted: January 30, 2004 Decided: February 13, 2004
Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William M. Lewis, Jr., Apellant Pro Se. Jay Owen Millman, BRENNER,
DOHNAL, EVANS & YOFFY, Richmond, Virginia; James Thomas Moore, III,
HENRICO COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Richmond, Virginia; Jeremy David
Capps, HARMAN, CLAYTOR, CORRIGAN & WELLMAN, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
William M. Lewis, Jr., appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on his motion for mistrial and default. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Lewis v.
Ugly Duckling Car Sales, No. CA-02-741 (E.D. Va. July 7, 2003). 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 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.