Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • White-Battle v. Democratic Party VA, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views3 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of Sherry White-Battle v. Democratic Party of Virginia et al. affirming the district court's granting of summary judgment to the defendants and denial of the plaintiff's motions to amend and for discovery. The court reviewed the record and found no reversible error. It also found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motions.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2005-06-21 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 05-1087

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of Sherry White-Battle v. Democratic Party of Virginia et al. affirming the district court's granting of summary judgment to the defendants and denial of the plaintiff's motions to amend and for discovery. The court reviewed the record and found no reversible error. It also found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motions.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    5 views3 pages

    White-Battle v. Democratic Party VA, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of Sherry White-Battle v. Democratic Party of Virginia et al. affirming the district court's granting of summary judgment to the defendants and denial of the plaintiff's motions to amend and for discovery. The court reviewed the record and found no reversible error. It also found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motions.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 05-1087

    SHERRY WHITE-BATTLE,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF VIRGINIA; NORFOLK CITY
    DEMOCRATIC COMMITTEE,
    Defendants - Appellees,
    and
    GEORGE SCHAEFER; NORFOLK ELECTORAL BOARD,
    Defendants,
    versus
    ELISA LONG, General Registrar of the City of
    Norfolk; EILEEN M. ADDISON,
    Movants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior
    District Judge. (CA-03-897-2)

    Submitted:

    May 27, 2005

    Decided:

    June 21, 2005

    Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Sherry White-Battle, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Edward Heretick,


    Portsmouth, Virginia; Robert Bryan Rigney, PROTOGYROU & RIGNEY,
    PLC, Norfolk, Virginia; Harold Phillip Juren, Deputy City Attorney,
    Norfolk, Virginia; Eileen M. Addison, COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEYS
    OFFICE, Yorktown, Virginia, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    - 2 -

    PER CURIAM:
    Sherry White-Battle appeals the district courts orders
    granting summary judgment to Defendants and denying her motions to
    amend and for discovery.

    See White-Battle v. Democratic Party of

    Virginia, No. CA-03-897-2 (E.D. Va. June 29 & Nov. 12, 2004).
    have

    reviewed

    the

    record

    Accordingly, we affirm.

    and

    find

    no

    reversible

    We

    error.

    In addition, we find the district court

    did not abuse its discretion in denying White-Battles motions to


    amend and for discovery.

    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

    - 3 -

    You might also like