Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Dixon v. Mitchell, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a court case in which Robert H. Dixon appealed a district court's denial of his motion to file an amended complaint after his original complaint had already been dismissed. The appeals court affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error in the reasons provided by the lower court for denying Dixon's motion. The appeals court decided the case could be resolved without oral arguments, as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2009-03-17 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 08-8412

    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 summarizes a court case in which Robert H. Dixon appealed a district court's denial of his motion to file an amended complaint after his original complaint had already been dismissed. The appeals court affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error in the reasons provided by the lower court for denying Dixon's motion. The appeals court decided the case could be resolved without oral arguments, as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

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

    Dixon v. Mitchell, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case in which Robert H. Dixon appealed a district court's denial of his motion to file an amended complaint after his original complaint had already been dismissed. The appeals court affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error in the reasons provided by the lower court for denying Dixon's motion. The appeals court decided the case could be resolved without oral arguments, as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 08-8412

    ROBERT H. DIXON,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    R.
    DAVID
    MITCHELL,
    Superintendent,
    Mountain
    View
    Correctional Institution; NURSE PRESNELL, RN, Mountain View
    Correctional Institution,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Asheville.
    Graham C. Mullen,
    Senior District Judge. (1:08-cv-00473-GCM)

    Submitted:

    March 12, 2009

    Before MOTZ and


    Circuit Judge.

    SHEDD,

    Decided:

    Circuit

    Judges,

    and

    March 17, 2009

    HAMILTON,

    Senior

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Robert H. Dixon, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Robert

    H.

    Dixon

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    order

    denying him leave to file an amended complaint after the action


    had already been dismissed.

    We have reviewed the record and

    find

    Accordingly,

    no

    reversible

    error.

    reasons stated by the district court.

    we

    argument

    adequately

    because

    presented

    in

    the
    the

    facts

    and

    materials

    for

    the

    Dixon v. Mitchell, No.

    1:08-cv-00473-GCM (W.D.N.C. Nov. 3, 2008).


    oral

    affirm

    We dispense with

    legal
    before

    contentions
    the

    court

    are
    and

    argument would not aid the decisional process.


    AFFIRMED

    You might also like