Sawyer v. Circuit Court of Fairfax County

Fourth Circuit

Sawyer v. Circuit Court of Fairfax County

92 F. App'x 40

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 20, 2004

DocketNos. 03-2275, 03-2313

StatusPublished

This text of 92 F. App'x 40 (Sawyer v. Circuit Court of Fairfax County) 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

Sawyer v. Circuit Court of Fairfax County, 92 F. App'x 40 (4th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated appeals, Ava Maureen Sawyer appeals the magistrate judge’s order granting Defendants’ Fed. R.Civ.P. 11 motion for sanctions (No. 03-2275) and the district court’s order denying relief on her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint (No. 03-2313). In No. 03-2275, we have reviewed the record and conclude that the magistrate judge did not abuse his discretion in awarding Rule 11 sanctions against Sawyer. See Sawyer v. Circuit Court of Fairfax County, No. CA-03-258A (E.D.Va. July 11, 2003; July 31, 2003). In No. 03-2313, we have reviewed the record and find no error in the district court’s order. Accordingly, we affirm for [41]*41the reasons stated by the district court. See Sawyer v. Circuit Court of Fairfax County, No. CA-03-258-A (E.D.Va. June 23, 2003). 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

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated appeals, Ava Maureen Sawyer appeals the magistrate judge’s order granting Defendants’ Fed. R.Civ.P. 11 motion for sanctions (No. 03-2275) and the district court’s order denying relief on her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint (No. 03-2313). In No. 03-2275, we have reviewed the record and conclude that the magistrate judge did not abuse his discretion in awarding Rule 11 sanctions against Sawyer. See Sawyer v. Circuit Court of Fairfax County, No. CA-03-258A (E.D.Va. July 11, 2003; July 31, 2003). In No. 03-2313, we have reviewed the record and find no error in the district court’s order. Accordingly, we affirm for [41]*41the reasons stated by the district court. See Sawyer v. Circuit Court of Fairfax County, No. CA-03-258-A (E.D.Va. June 23, 2003). 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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 F. App'x 40, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sawyer-v-circuit-court-of-fairfax-county-ca4-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack