Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Marrow v. Roanoke Electric Membership Corp, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a case brought by Victor Marrow against Roanoke Electric Membership Corporation. The district court denied relief on Marrow's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision for the reasons stated in its opinion. Additionally, the Court of Appeals denied the appellees' motion for sanctions against Marrow, finding he did not pursue litigation for malicious purposes or file numerous frivolous suits.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2007-04-20 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 06-2089

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a case brought by Victor Marrow against Roanoke Electric Membership Corporation. The district court denied relief on Marrow's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision for the reasons stated in its opinion. Additionally, the Court of Appeals denied the appellees' motion for sanctions against Marrow, finding he did not pursue litigation for malicious purposes or file numerous frivolous suits.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    6 views2 pages

    Marrow v. Roanoke Electric Membership Corp, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a case brought by Victor Marrow against Roanoke Electric Membership Corporation. The district court denied relief on Marrow's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision for the reasons stated in its opinion. Additionally, the Court of Appeals denied the appellees' motion for sanctions against Marrow, finding he did not pursue litigation for malicious purposes or file numerous frivolous suits.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 06-2089

    VICTOR A. MARROW,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    ROANOKE ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP CORPORATION, Its
    Board of Directors; DELORES AMASON; CAROLYN D.
    BRADLEY; CHESTER DELOATCH; JOHNNIE P. GARNER;
    KEN JERNIGAN; DARNELL LEE; MILLARD LEE; ROBERT
    RIDDICK; ALLEN SPELLER; CURTIS WYNN, Executive
    Vice-President & CEO; EVA WIGGINS, VicePresident of Human Resources,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
    W. Earl Britt, Senior
    District Judge. (5:06-cv-00130-BR)

    Submitted:

    March 21, 2007

    Decided:

    April 20, 2007

    Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    D. Lynn Whitted, Goldsboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Laura


    J. Wetsch, WINSLOW WETSCH, P.L.L.C., Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Victor A. Marrow appeals the district courts order
    denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000) complaint.
    reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

    We have

    Accordingly, we

    affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.

    See Marrow v.

    Roanoke Elec. Membership Corp., No. 5:06-cv-00130-BR (E.D.N.C. Aug.


    7, 2006).
    App.

    P.

    We deny Appellees motion for sanctions under Fed. R.


    38

    because

    we

    cannot

    conclude

    Marrow

    pursued

    this

    litigation for malicious purposes, see Dyntel Corp. v. Ebner, 120


    F.3d 489, 493 (4th Cir. 1997), or has previously filed numerous
    frivolous suits or appeals, see Foley v. Fix, 106 F.3d 556, 558
    (4th Cir. 1997).

    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 -

    You might also like