Perry-Bey v. City of Norfolk

Fourth Circuit

Perry-Bey v. City of Norfolk

412 F. App'x 638

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided February 22, 2011·No. No. 10-1255·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Christina D. Perry-Bey appeals the district court’s order dismissing this action with prejudice for failure to comply with a court order. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Perry-Bey v. City of Norfolk, No. 2:08-cv-00100-MSD-DEM (E.D.Va. Apr. 6, 2010). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal [639]*639contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. The motion to expedite is denied as moot.

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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Christina D. Perry-Bey appeals the district court’s order dismissing this action with prejudice for failure to comply with a court order. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Perry-Bey v. City of Norfolk, No. 2:08-cv-00100-MSD-DEM (E.D.Va. Apr. 6, 2010). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal [639]*639contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. The motion to expedite is denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.

Perry-Bey v. City of Norfolk, 412 F. App'x 638 (4th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

412 F. App'x 638 (Perry-Bey v. City of Norfolk) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related