Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • McKoy v. Norfolk Redevlopment, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    Barbara McKoy sued the Norfolk Redevelopment and Housing Authority and other defendants alleging improper practices relating to her participation in a federal subsidized rent program. The district court dismissed McKoy's claims. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal, finding no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. The Fourth Circuit declined to hold oral arguments as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2002-09-27 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 02-1854

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Barbara McKoy sued the Norfolk Redevelopment and Housing Authority and other defendants alleging improper practices relating to her participation in a federal subsidized rent program. The district court dismissed McKoy's claims. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal, finding no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. The Fourth Circuit declined to hold oral arguments as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    Copyright:

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

    McKoy v. Norfolk Redevlopment, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Barbara McKoy sued the Norfolk Redevelopment and Housing Authority and other defendants alleging improper practices relating to her participation in a federal subsidized rent program. The district court dismissed McKoy's claims. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal, finding no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. The Fourth Circuit declined to hold oral arguments as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 02-1854

    BARBARA A. MCKOY,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    NORFOLK REDEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING AUTHORITY;
    RUBY HOOKS, Resource Manager; D.D. CASTRO
    ONEIL, Section 8 Program Specialist; CRENSHAW,
    WARE & MARTIN; ORION INVESTMENT,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District
    Judge. (CA-02-268-2)

    Submitted:

    September 19, 2002

    Decided:

    September 27, 2002

    Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Barbara A. McKoy, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Sue Morrissey, CRENSHAW,
    WARE & MARTIN, P.L.C., Norfolk, Virginia; Richard Ennis Biemiller,
    WOLCOTT, RIVERS, WHEARY, BASNIGHT & KELLY, P.C., Virginia Beach,
    Virginia, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Barbara A. McKoy appeals from the district courts order
    dismissing her civil action alleging improper practices by the
    Defendants relating to her participation in a federal subsidized
    rent program. We have reviewed the record and the district courts
    opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the
    reasoning of the district court. See McKoy v. Norfolk Redevelopment
    & Housing Auth., No. CA-02-268-2 (E.D. Va. filed July 12, 2002 &
    entered July 15, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the
    facts

    and

    materials

    legal
    before

    contentions
    the

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in

    the

    aid

    the

    decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like