Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Shapiro v. Lanteigne, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    8 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a case between Joshua Barrett Shapiro and Paul Lanteigne. The district court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff's claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so they affirmed the district court's decision for the reasons stated in their January 22, 2010 ruling. The appeals court dispensed with oral arguments, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2010-07-29 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 10-1152

    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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a case between Joshua Barrett Shapiro and Paul Lanteigne. The district court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff's claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so they affirmed the district court's decision for the reasons stated in their January 22, 2010 ruling. The appeals court dispensed with oral arguments, finding 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
    8 views2 pages

    Shapiro v. Lanteigne, 4th Cir. (2010)

    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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a case between Joshua Barrett Shapiro and Paul Lanteigne. The district court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff's claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so they affirmed the district court's decision for the reasons stated in their January 22, 2010 ruling. The appeals court dispensed with oral arguments, finding 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. 10-1152

    JOSHUA BARRETT SHAPIRO,


    Plaintiff Appellant,
    v.
    PAUL LANTEIGNE,
    Defendant Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
    Mark S. Davis, District
    Judge. (2:09-cv-00339-MSD-FBS)

    Submitted:

    July 22, 2010

    Decided:

    July 29, 2010

    Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Joshua Barrett Shapiro, Appellant Pro Se. Jeff W. Rosen, PENDER


    & COWARD, PC, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Joshua

    Barrett

    Shapiro

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    order granting the Defendants motion for summary judgment and


    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.

    See
    Va.

    Shapiro

    Jan.

    22,

    v.

    Lanteigne,

    2010).

    We

    No.

    dispense

    2:09-cv-00339-MSD-FBS
    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