Crusenberry V. Boddie-Noell Enterprises, Inc.

22 F. App'x 194
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedNovember 26, 2001
DocketNos. 01-1449, 01-1497
StatusPublished

This text of 22 F. App'x 194 (Crusenberry V. Boddie-Noell Enterprises, Inc.) 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
Crusenberry V. Boddie-Noell Enterprises, Inc., 22 F. App'x 194 (4th Cir. 2001).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In No. 01-1449, Pauline Crusenberry appeals the district court’s order denying her motion for new trial. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. See Fitzgerald v. Greene, 150 F.3d 357, 362 (4th Cir.1998); City of Richmond v. Madi[195]*195son Mgmt. Group, Inc., 918 F.2d 438, 459 (4th Cir.1990). Accordingly, we affirm.

In its cross-appeal, No. 01-1497, Bod-die-Noell challenges the district court’s order denying its bill of costs pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d)(1). However, our review of the record and district court’s order again reveals no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm that decision on the reasoning of the district court. Crusenberry v. Boddie-Noell Enterprises, Inc., No. CA-99-129-2, 2001 WL 418737 (WD.Va. Mar. 15, 2001). 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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
22 F. App'x 194, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crusenberry-v-boddie-noell-enterprises-inc-ca4-2001.