Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 9 views

    Lance Johnson v. James Dalton, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Lance M. Johnson appealed the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against a circuit court judge, another circuit court judge, and a defense attorney for failure to state a claim. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal, finding no reversible error. The unpublished opinion is not binding precedent. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument because the facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Lance Johnson v. James Dalton, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    9 views2 pages
    Lance M. Johnson appealed the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against a circuit court judge, another circuit court judge, and a defense attorney for failure to state a claim. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal, finding no reversible error. The unpublished opinion is not binding precedent. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument because the facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2012-04-03 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 11-7623

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Lance M. Johnson appealed the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against a circuit court judge, another circuit court judge, and a defense attorney for failure to state a claim. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal, finding no reversible error. The unpublished opinion is not binding precedent. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument because the facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    9 views2 pages

    Lance Johnson v. James Dalton, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Lance M. Johnson appealed the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against a circuit court judge, another circuit court judge, and a defense attorney for failure to state a claim. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal, finding no reversible error. The unpublished opinion is not binding precedent. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument because the facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 11-7623

    LANCE M. JOHNSON,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    JAMES DALTON, Circuit Court Judge; PAMELA BASKERVILLE,
    Circuit Court Judge; PHILLIP T. DISTANISGELLO, JR., Defense
    Attorney,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
    Judge. (2:11-cv-00577-RAJ-FBS)

    Submitted:

    March 29, 2012

    Decided:

    April 3, 2012

    Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Lance M. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Lance M. Johnson appeals the district courts order
    dismissing his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2006) action for failure to
    state

    claim

    under

    28

    U.S.C.

    1915A(b)

    (2006).

    reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

    We

    have

    Accordingly,

    we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.

    Johnson

    v. Dalton, No. 2:11-cv-00577-RAJ-FBS (E.D. Va. Nov. 7, 2011).


    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

    You might also like