Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Michael Scott v. City of Norfolk, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    18 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a court case in which Michael A. Scott appealed a district court's denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against the City of Norfolk and several defendants. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so it affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in that court's September 30, 2011 decision. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately explained in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2012-02-23 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 11-2203

    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 Michael A. Scott appealed a district court's denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against the City of Norfolk and several defendants. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so it affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in that court's September 30, 2011 decision. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately explained in the case materials.

    Copyright:

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

    Michael Scott v. City of Norfolk, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case in which Michael A. Scott appealed a district court's denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against the City of Norfolk and several defendants. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so it affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in that court's September 30, 2011 decision. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately explained 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    UNPUBLISHED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. 11-2203

    MICHAEL A. SCOTT,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    CITY OF NORFOLK; REGINA V.K. WILLIAMS; BERNARD A. PISHKO; K.
    HANNAN; S. MICHAEL; E. ZYSK,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
    Judge. (2:10-cv-00611-RAJ-DEM)

    Submitted:

    February 14, 2012

    Decided:

    February 23, 2012

    Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Michael A. Scott, Appellant Pro Se.


    Melvin Wayne Ringer, CITY
    ATTORNEYS OFFICE, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Michael A. Scott appeals the district courts order
    denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2006) complaint.
    have

    reviewed

    the

    record

    and

    find

    no

    reversible

    We

    error.

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district


    court.
    (E.D.

    Scott
    Va.

    v.

    Sept.

    City

    30,

    of

    2011).

    Norfolk,
    We

    No.

    dispense

    2:10-cv-00611-RAJ-DEM
    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

    You might also like