Audrey Clement v. Ray LaHood

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for stay pending appeal [998412452-2] Originating case number: 1:09-cv-01056-CMH-IDD. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998441186] [10-1531]

Audrey Clement v. Ray LaHood

Doc. 0

Case: 10-1531 Document: 26

Date Filed: 10/07/2010

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1531 AUDREY CLEMENT; JOHN REEDER, Plaintiffs ­ Appellants, and JOSHUA RUEBNER, Plaintiff, v. RAY H. LAHOOD, U. S. Department of Transportation; VICTOR MENDEZ, Administrator Federal Highway Administration; ROBERTO FONSECO-MARTINEZ, Virginia Division Administrator, Federal Highway Administration; DAVID S. EKERN, Commissioner, Virginia Department of Transportation, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:09-cv-01056-CMH-IDD) Submitted: August 17, 2010 Decided: October 7, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Audrey Clement, John Reeder, Appellants Pro Se. Allen M. Brabender, Bernard G. Kim, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-1531 Document: 26

Date Filed: 10/07/2010

Page: 2

Washington, D.C.; Christopher Dwight Eib, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Case: 10-1531 Document: 26

Date Filed: 10/07/2010

Page: 3

PER CURIAM: Audrey court's order Clement granting and John Reeder judgment appeal in the district of the

summary

favor

Government and dismissing Clement's civil complaint. reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

We have

Accordingly,

we deny Clement and Reeder's motion for a stay pending appeal and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.

Clement v. LaHood, No. 1:09-cv-01056-CMH-IDD (E.D. Va. Apr. 30, 2010). legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional

would

process. AFFIRMED

3