Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1 views

    Hayes v. Morrison, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Walter Hayes appealed the district court's dismissal of his civil complaint for lack of jurisdiction and its denial of his motion to reconsider. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction, agreeing with the reasons stated by the lower court.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    Hayes v. Morrison, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views2 pages
    Walter Hayes appealed the district court's dismissal of his civil complaint for lack of jurisdiction and its denial of his motion to reconsider. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction, agreeing with the reasons stated by the lower court.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2010-04-26 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 09-2395

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Walter Hayes appealed the district court's dismissal of his civil complaint for lack of jurisdiction and its denial of his motion to reconsider. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction, agreeing with the reasons stated by the lower court.

    Copyright:

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

    Hayes v. Morrison, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Walter Hayes appealed the district court's dismissal of his civil complaint for lack of jurisdiction and its denial of his motion to reconsider. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction, agreeing with the reasons stated by the lower court.

    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. 09-2395

    WALTER D. HAYES,
    Plaintiff Appellant,
    v.
    W. WARE MORRISON, Attorney & Counselor at Law; PROVIDENT
    LIFE & ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY; EDWARD E. ROLLINS, JR.;
    GLADYS HAYES-OWENS; CHARLES EVERETT MALONE, Attorney at Law,
    Defendants Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District
    Judge. (2:09-cv-00431-JBF-FBS)

    Submitted:

    April 22, 2010

    Decided:

    April 26, 2010

    Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Walter D. Hayes, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Walter
    denying

    D.

    Hayes

    reconsideration

    appeals
    of

    the

    the

    district

    dismissal

    courts
    for

    order

    lack

    of

    jurisdiction of Hayes civil complaint.

    We have reviewed the

    record

    and

    error.

    Accordingly,

    Hayes

    motion

    district

    courts

    find
    to

    no

    reversible

    overturn

    the

    we

    deny

    decision

    affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.

    and

    Hayes v.

    Morrison, No. 2:09-cv-00431-JBF-FBS (E.D. Va. Nov. 24, 2009).


    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