Jarvis v. Paper Source

Fourth Circuit

Jarvis v. Paper Source

556 F. App'x 272

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 25, 2014

DocketNo. 13-2368

StatusPublished

This text of 556 F. App'x 272 (Jarvis v. Paper Source) 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

Jarvis v. Paper Source, 556 F. App'x 272 (4th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Derek N. Jarvis appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil complaint alleging employment discrimination be[273]*273cause he failed to serve Defendant within 120 days of filing his complaint, in violation of Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m). We find no abuse of discretion by the district court for dismissing the complaint under Rule 4(m). See Shao v. Link Cargo (Taiwan) Ltd., 986 F.2d 700, 708 (4th Cir.1993) (providing review standard). Finding no reversible error, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Jarvis v. The Paper Source, No. 1:12-cv-01454-CMH-TRJ (E.D.Va. Oct. 28, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Derek N. Jarvis appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil complaint alleging employment discrimination be[273]*273cause he failed to serve Defendant within 120 days of filing his complaint, in violation of Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m). We find no abuse of discretion by the district court for dismissing the complaint under Rule 4(m). See Shao v. Link Cargo (Taiwan) Ltd., 986 F.2d 700, 708 (4th Cir.1993) (providing review standard). Finding no reversible error, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Jarvis v. The Paper Source, No. 1:12-cv-01454-CMH-TRJ (E.D.Va. Oct. 28, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

556 F. App'x 272, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jarvis-v-paper-source-ca4-2014.