Moseley v. Price

Fourth Circuit

Moseley v. Price

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedAugust 23, 2004

Docket04-1231

StatusUnpublished

This text of Moseley v. Price (Moseley v. Price) 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

Moseley v. Price, (4th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-1231

JONATHON MOSELEY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DIANNA PRICE, individually and as Secretary of the Loudoun County Electoral Board; JEAN JENSEN, individually and as Secretary of the Virginia State Board of Elections; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, a State covered under Section 5 of the Federal Voting Rights Act of 1965, by its Governor Mark Warner; ANDREW PARKER, individually and as Assistant Commonwealth Attorney for the County of Arlington; ROBERT ANDERSON, "Bob"; TIM JOHNS, individually but found at WAGE Radio,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-03-1320-A)

Submitted: August 13, 2004 Decided: August 23, 2004

Before TRAXLER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jonathon Moseley, Appellant Pro Se. John Adrian Gibney, Jr., THOMPSON & MCMULLAN, Richmond, Virginia, James Christian Stuchell, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia; Alexander Francuzenko, O’CONNELL, O’CONNELL & SARSFIELD, Rockville, Maryland; Robert Theodore Mitchell, Jr., Winchester, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

- 2 - PER CURIAM:

Jonathon Moseley appeals from the district court’s order

dismissing his civil complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(b)(6). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court. See Moseley v. Price, No. CA-03-1320-A (E.D. Va.

filed Jan. 22, 2004 & entered Jan. 23, 2004). 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

- 3 -

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