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)
10-7703•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 CircuitJul 5, 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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.