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)
17-1780•Derek N. Jarvis v. the City of Alexandria Mayor’s Office; Alexandria City Counsel; Alexandria City Manager
17-1780Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitOct 19, 2017
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-1780
DEREK N. JARVIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA MAYOR’S OFFICE; ALEXANDRIA CITY
COUNSEL; ALEXANDRIA CITY MANAGER,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 17-1804
DEREK N. JARVIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA MAYOR’S OFFICE; ALEXANDRIA CITY
COUNSEL; ALEXANDRIA CITY MANAGER,
Defendants - Appellees.
-- 1 of 3 --
2
No. 17-1805
DEREK N. JARVIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA MAYOR’S OFFICE; ALEXANDRIA CITY
COUNSEL; ALEXANDRIA CITY MANAGER,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:17-cv-00378-JCC-JFA)
Submitted: October 17, 2017 Decided: October 19, 2017
Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Derek N. Jarvis, Appellant Pro Se. Travis Sands MacRae, OFFICE OF THE CITY
ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 2 of 3 --
3
PER CURIAM:
Derek N. Jarvis appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his civil action,
dismissing his motion to reconsider under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), and imposing a prefiling
injunction applicable to future filings. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.
Jarvis v. The City of Alexandria, No. 1:17-cv-00378-JCC-JFA (E.D. Va. June 12, 22, 28,
2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
-- 3 of 3 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.