Clement v. LaHood

Fourth Circuit

Clement v. LaHood

397 F. App'x 859

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided October 7, 2010·No. No. 10-1531·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Audrey Clement and John Reeder appeal the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the Government and dismissing Clement’s civil complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 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, 2010 WL 1779701 (E.D.Va. Apr. 30, 2010). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the [860]*860materials 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

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Audrey Clement and John Reeder appeal the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the Government and dismissing Clement’s civil complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 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, 2010 WL 1779701 (E.D.Va. Apr. 30, 2010). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the [860]*860materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Clement v. LaHood, 397 F. App'x 859 (4th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

397 F. App'x 859 (Clement v. LaHood) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related