Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Edmonds v. Moore, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of all claims against Elizabeth H. Paret, the Clerk for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning for dismissing the claims. The court also declined to consider a new claim raised by Edmonds on appeal that Paret perpetrated fraud in her defense, as that claim was not properly before the appellate court.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2003-05-27 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 03-6224

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of all claims against Elizabeth H. Paret, the Clerk for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning for dismissing the claims. The court also declined to consider a new claim raised by Edmonds on appeal that Paret perpetrated fraud in her defense, as that claim was not properly before the appellate court.

    Copyright:

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

    Edmonds v. Moore, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of all claims against Elizabeth H. Paret, the Clerk for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning for dismissing the claims. The court also declined to consider a new claim raised by Edmonds on appeal that Paret perpetrated fraud in her defense, as that claim was not properly before the appellate 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    UNPUBLISHED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. 03-6224

    ANDRE EDMONDS,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    ELIZABETH H. PARET,
    Defendant - Appellee,
    and
    JOHN J. MOORE; VALERIE CARR; VICTORIA PAULEY,
    Defendants.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
    District Judge. (CA-02-805)

    Submitted:

    May 15, 2003

    Decided:

    May 27, 2003

    Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Andre Edmonds, Appellant Pro Se. Debra Jean Prillaman, Assistant


    United States Attorney, Tara Louise Casey, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
    STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Andre Edmonds appeals the district courts order dismissing
    all claims against Elizabeth H. Paret, Clerk for the United States
    District Court, Eastern District of Virginia.*

    We have reviewed

    the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on


    the reasoning of the district court.
    02-805 (E.D. Va. Jan. 15, 2003).

    See Edmonds v. Moore, No. CA-

    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

    Edmonds claim, raised for the first time on appeal, that


    Paret perpetrated a fraud on the district court in her defense of
    this matter is not properly before this court for consideration.
    Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993).
    2

    You might also like