Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • John Corrigan v. D. Dale, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    8 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of John L. Corrigan's motion for relief from judgment. Corrigan had filed a motion asking the district court to declare void prior orders from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington granting summary judgment against Corrigan in a civil rights action. The Fourth Circuit found that Corrigan's claim was barred by collateral estoppel because the issue of whether the Eastern District of Washington erred in not dismissing the action for Corrigan's failure to timely serve defendants had already been litigated.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2012-07-26 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 12-6764

    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 denial of John L. Corrigan's motion for relief from judgment. Corrigan had filed a motion asking the district court to declare void prior orders from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington granting summary judgment against Corrigan in a civil rights action. The Fourth Circuit found that Corrigan's claim was barred by collateral estoppel because the issue of whether the Eastern District of Washington erred in not dismissing the action for Corrigan's failure to timely serve defendants had already been litigated.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    8 views3 pages

    John Corrigan v. D. Dale, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of John L. Corrigan's motion for relief from judgment. Corrigan had filed a motion asking the district court to declare void prior orders from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington granting summary judgment against Corrigan in a civil rights action. The Fourth Circuit found that Corrigan's claim was barred by collateral estoppel because the issue of whether the Eastern District of Washington erred in not dismissing the action for Corrigan's failure to timely serve defendants had already been litigated.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 12-6764

    JOHN L. CORRIGAN,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    D. DALE, WSP Trooper; D. BURT, WSP
    Judge; B. SCUDDER, Deputy Prosecutor,

    Trooper;

    A.

    HILLE,

    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
    Claude M. Hilton, Senior
    District Judge. (1:12-mc-00006-CMH-IDD)

    Submitted:

    July 19, 2012

    Decided:

    July 26, 2012

    Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    John L. Corrigan, Appellant Pro Se.


    Alexander McDonald
    Laughlin, WILEY REIN, LLP, McLean, Virginia, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    John

    L.

    Corrigan

    filed

    self-styled

    Motion

    for

    Relief from Judgment or Order in which he moved the district


    court to declare as void orders of the United States District
    Court for the Eastern District of Washington granting summary
    judgment

    to

    the

    Defendants

    in

    his

    civil

    rights

    action

    and

    awarding Defendants Hille and Scudder $10,822.51 in attorneys


    fees.
    court

    Corrigan argued in the motion for relief that, as the


    of

    district

    registration
    court

    had

    under

    the

    power

    28

    U.S.C.

    to

    grant

    1963
    him

    (2006),

    relief

    the

    from

    the

    Eastern District of Washingtons erroneous determination that it


    was not required to dismiss the action without prejudice based
    his failure to serve Defendants within the time limit prescribed
    by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

    The district court denied Corrigans

    motion, and he now appeals.

    We affirm.

    The substance of Corrigans contention in the motion


    for reliefthat the Eastern District of Washingtons orders were
    void

    because

    he

    failed

    to

    serve

    mannerpreviously was litigated.

    the

    Defendants

    barred

    by

    the

    timely

    Corrigan v. Dale, No. 2:07-cv-

    00227-RHW (E.D. Wash. Nov. 21, 2008).


    therefore

    in

    doctrine

    His claim for relief is


    of

    collateral

    estoppel.

    See Orca Yachts, L.L.C. v. Mollicam, Inc., 287 F.3d 316, 318
    (4th

    Cir.

    2002)

    (setting

    forth

    preclusion and collateral estoppel).


    2

    the

    principles

    of

    claim

    Accordingly,

    we

    affirm

    the

    denying Corrigans motion for relief.

    district

    courts

    order

    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

    You might also like