Rutledge v. City of Danville

Fourth Circuit

Rutledge v. City of Danville

567 F. App'x 182

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedApril 21, 2014

DocketNo. 13-2494

StatusPublished

This text of 567 F. App'x 182 (Rutledge v. City of Danville) 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

Rutledge v. City of Danville, 567 F. App'x 182 (4th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Merle T. Rutledge, Jr., appeals the district court’s order imposing a pre-filing injunction and the court’s opinion dismissing his civil action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant Rutledge leave to proceed on appeal in forma pau-peris, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Rutledge v. City of Danville, No. 4:13-cv-00066-JLK, 2013 [183]*183WL 6804697 (W.D.Va. Dec. 9 & Dec. 20, 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Merle T. Rutledge, Jr., appeals the district court’s order imposing a pre-filing injunction and the court’s opinion dismissing his civil action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant Rutledge leave to proceed on appeal in forma pau-peris, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Rutledge v. City of Danville, No. 4:13-cv-00066-JLK, 2013 [183]*183WL 6804697 (W.D.Va. Dec. 9 & Dec. 20, 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)

567 F. App'x 182, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rutledge-v-city-of-danville-ca4-2014.