Christopher Bailey, IV v. Jan Smokowicz
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [998985898-2]. Originating case number: 4:12-cv-00042-RBS-DEM. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999074350]. Mailed to: Christopher Bailey. [12-2255]
Appeal: 12-2255
Doc: 14
Filed: 03/28/2013
Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-2255
CHRISTOPHER C. BAILEY, IV,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JAN SMOKOWICZ, City Attorney; TOM BARRET, Mayor,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News.
Rebecca Beach Smith,
Chief District Judge. (4:12-cv-00042-RBS-DEM)
Submitted:
March 26, 2013
Decided:
March 28, 2013
Before DUNCAN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christopher C. Bailey, IV, Appellant Pro
Cales, III, FURNISS, DAVIS, RASHKIND &
Virginia, for Appellees.
Se.
James Arthur
SAUNDERS, Norfolk,
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 12-2255
Doc: 14
Filed: 03/28/2013
Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Christopher
court’s
order
granting
denying
defendants’
(2006) complaint.
have
C.
his
to
appeals
for
dismiss
the
default
his
42
district
judgment
U.S.C.
Accordingly,
although
we
pauperis,
affirm
for
and
grant
the
find
no
reversible
leave
to
proceed
reasons
stated
by
the
and
§ 1983
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2), (5), (6).
record
we
IV,
motion
motion
the
court.
reviewed
Bailey,
We
error.
in
forma
district
Bailey v. Smokowicz, No. 4:12-cv-00042-RBS-DEM (E.D. Va.
filed Sept. 13, 2012; entered Sept. 14, 2012).
We dispense with
oral
legal
contentions
are
before
this
and
argument
adequately
because
presented
in
the
the
facts
and
materials
court
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?