Steinberg v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Fourth Circuit

Steinberg v. Commonwealth of Virginia

37 F.3d 1495, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 34895

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedOctober 19, 1994

Docket94-1139

StatusPublished

This text of 37 F.3d 1495 (Steinberg v. Commonwealth of Virginia) 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

Steinberg v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 37 F.3d 1495, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 34895 (4th Cir. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

37 F.3d 1495
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Murray L. STEINBERG, on behalf of himself, and all those
similarly situated, Plaintiff Appellant,
and
Chelsea Renee STEINBERG, by her next friend, and natural
father, Plaintiff,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Henrico County, Virginia; Lee A.
Harris, Jr., Judge; James E. Kulp, Judge; Murray J. Janus;
Deanna L. Dworakowski; Bremner, Baber & Janus; Katherine
T. Steinberg; Kenneth Shumaker; Pauline Kie, Defendants Appellees.

No. 94-1139.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted September 6, 1994.
Decided October 19, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-93-477)

Murray L. Steinberg, appellant pro se.

Barbara J. Gaden, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, VA; Joseph Paul Rapisarda, Jr., County Attorney, James Thomas Moore, III, County Attorney's Office, Richmond, VA; Murray Joseph Janus, Theodore Ira Brenner, Bremner, Baber & Janus, Richmond, VA, for appellees.

E.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before WILKINSON, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM

Appellant appeals from the district court's order imposing monetary sanctions pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 11. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Steinberg v. Virginia, No. CA-93-477 (E.D. Va. Dec. 22, 1993). 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

37 F.3d 1495
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Murray L. STEINBERG, on behalf of himself, and all those
similarly situated, Plaintiff Appellant,
and
Chelsea Renee STEINBERG, by her next friend, and natural
father, Plaintiff,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Henrico County, Virginia; Lee A.
Harris, Jr., Judge; James E. Kulp, Judge; Murray J. Janus;
Deanna L. Dworakowski; Bremner, Baber & Janus; Katherine
T. Steinberg; Kenneth Shumaker; Pauline Kie, Defendants Appellees.

No. 94-1139.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted September 6, 1994.
Decided October 19, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-93-477)

Murray L. Steinberg, appellant pro se.

Barbara J. Gaden, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, VA; Joseph Paul Rapisarda, Jr., County Attorney, James Thomas Moore, III, County Attorney's Office, Richmond, VA; Murray Joseph Janus, Theodore Ira Brenner, Bremner, Baber & Janus, Richmond, VA, for appellees.

E.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before WILKINSON, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM

Appellant appeals from the district court's order imposing monetary sanctions pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 11. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Steinberg v. Virginia, No. CA-93-477 (E.D. Va. Dec. 22, 1993). 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)

37 F.3d 1495, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 34895, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steinberg-v-commonwealth-of-virginia-ca4-1994.