Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Feagan v. Jaunt, Incorporated, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    0 views2 pages
    Three individuals sued a transportation company under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia dismissed the case. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error. It affirmed the district court's dismissal for the reasons stated in its previous ruling. The appellate court dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2007-09-13 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 06-2094

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Three individuals sued a transportation company under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia dismissed the case. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error. It affirmed the district court's dismissal for the reasons stated in its previous ruling. The appellate court dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

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

    Feagan v. Jaunt, Incorporated, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Three individuals sued a transportation company under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia dismissed the case. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error. It affirmed the district court's dismissal for the reasons stated in its previous ruling. The appellate court dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented 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. 06-2094

    JOSEPH P. FEAGAN; LILLIE B. WHITE; NELLIE M.


    RICHARDS,
    Plaintiffs - Appellants,
    versus
    JAUNT, INCORPORATED,
    Defendant - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, District
    Judge. (3:05-cv-00066)

    Submitted:

    August 31, 2007

    Decided:

    September 13, 2007

    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Robert P. Dwoskin, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellants.


    Rosalie P. Fessier, TIMBERLAKE, SMITH, THOMAS & MOSES, P.C.,
    Staunton, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Joseph P. Feagan, Lillie B. White, and Nellie M. Richards
    appeal the district courts order dismissing their action under the
    Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12101-12213 (2000).
    We

    have

    reviewed

    the

    record

    and

    find

    no

    reversible

    error.

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district


    court.

    Feagan v. Jaunt, Inc., No. 3:05-cv-00066 (W.D. Va. Sept.

    27, 2006).

    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

    - 2 -

    You might also like