Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Christopher Bailey, IV v. Jan Smokowicz, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's order granting the defendants' motion to dismiss Christopher Bailey's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The Court of Appeals found no reversible error in the district court's ruling that it lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendants and that Bailey failed to properly serve the defendants. The Court of Appeals also affirmed the district court's denial of Bailey's motion for default judgment.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2013-03-28 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 12-2255

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's order granting the defendants' motion to dismiss Christopher Bailey's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The Court of Appeals found no reversible error in the district court's ruling that it lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendants and that Bailey failed to properly serve the defendants. The Court of Appeals also affirmed the district court's denial of Bailey's motion for default judgment.

    Copyright:

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

    Christopher Bailey, IV v. Jan Smokowicz, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's order granting the defendants' motion to dismiss Christopher Bailey's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The Court of Appeals found no reversible error in the district court's ruling that it lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendants and that Bailey failed to properly serve the defendants. The Court of Appeals also affirmed the district court's denial of Bailey's motion for default judgment.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 12-2255

    CHRISTOPHER C. BAILEY, IV,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    JAN SMOKOWICZ, City Attorney; TOM BARRET, Mayor,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Newport News.
    Rebecca Beach Smith,
    Chief District Judge. (4:12-cv-00042-RBS-DEM)

    Submitted:

    March 26, 2013

    Decided:

    March 28, 2013

    Before DUNCAN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Christopher C. Bailey, IV, Appellant Pro


    Cales, III, FURNISS, DAVIS, RASHKIND &
    Virginia, for Appellees.

    Se.
    James Arthur
    SAUNDERS, Norfolk,

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Christopher
    courts

    order

    granting

    denying

    defendants

    (2006) complaint.
    have

    C.

    reviewed

    IV,

    motion
    to

    appeals

    for

    dismiss

    the

    default
    his

    42

    district

    judgment
    U.S.C.

    the

    record

    pauperis,

    affirm

    we
    for

    and
    grant

    the

    find

    no

    reversible

    leave

    to

    proceed

    reasons

    stated

    by

    the

    and

    1983

    See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2), (5), (6).

    although

    court.

    his

    motion

    Accordingly,
    we

    Bailey,

    We

    error.

    in

    forma

    district

    Bailey v. Smokowicz, No. 4:12-cv-00042-RBS-DEM (E.D. Va.

    filed Sept. 13, 2012; entered Sept. 14, 2012).

    We dispense with

    oral

    contentions

    argument

    adequately

    because

    presented

    in

    the
    the

    facts

    and

    materials

    legal
    before

    this

    court

    are
    and

    argument would not aid the decisional process.


    AFFIRMED

    You might also like