Bailey v. City of Hickory

Fourth Circuit

Bailey v. City of Hickory

120 F. App'x 501

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 4, 2005

Docket04-2053

StatusUnpublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 120 F. App'x 501 (Bailey v. City of Hickory) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bailey v. City of Hickory, 120 F. App'x 501 (4th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Michael Bailey appeals the district court’s orders ruling on various motions for summary judgment, entering judgment for defendants in accordance with a jury verdict, and denying his motion for a new trial. Having reviewed the record and the issues raised on appeal, we find that the appeal is without merit and affirm. See Bailey v. Kennedy, No. CA-00-8-5-H (W.D.N.C. June 10, 2002; May 11, 2004; July 16, 2004). We grant the motions to file amended briefs. The motions for oral argument, to strike the memorandum and order, for preparation of a transcript at government expense, to depose Teresa Huffman, to strike a blood alcohol test, and to stay the case are denied. 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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Michael Bailey appeals the district court’s orders ruling on various motions for summary judgment, entering judgment for defendants in accordance with a jury verdict, and denying his motion for a new trial. Having reviewed the record and the issues raised on appeal, we find that the appeal is without merit and affirm. See Bailey v. Kennedy, No. CA-00-8-5-H (W.D.N.C. June 10, 2002; May 11, 2004; July 16, 2004). We grant the motions to file amended briefs. The motions for oral argument, to strike the memorandum and order, for preparation of a transcript at government expense, to depose Teresa Huffman, to strike a blood alcohol test, and to stay the case are denied. 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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 F. App'x 501, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bailey-v-city-of-hickory-ca4-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack