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)
10-1255•Christina D. Perry-Bey v. City of Norfolk
10-1255Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitFeb 22, 2011
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1255
CHRISTINA D. PERRY-BEY,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
CITY OF NORFOLK,
Defendant – Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District
Judge. (2:08-cv-00100-MSD-DEM)
Submitted: January 31, 2011 Decided: February 22, 2011
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christina D. Perry-Bey, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Wilbur Jacobs,
II, CHRISTIAN & BARTON, LLP, Richmond, Virginia; Melvin Wayne
Ringer, CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Christina D. Perry-Bey appeals the district court’s
order dismissing this action with prejudice for failure to
comply with a court order. We have reviewed the record and find
no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons
stated by the district court. Perry-Bey v. City of Norfolk, No.
2:08-cv-00100-MSD-DEM (E.D. Va. Apr. 6, 2010). 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. The motion to
expedite is denied as moot.
AFFIRMED
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.