Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Richardson v. Dept of Corr VA, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding an appeal filed by Clifton H. Richardson of the district court's denial of his motion to vacate judgment under Rule 60(b)(1) and denial of an extension of the appeal period. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's rulings, finding no reversible error. The Fourth Circuit relied on the reasoning of the district court in its decision.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-10-02 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 96-7045

    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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding an appeal filed by Clifton H. Richardson of the district court's denial of his motion to vacate judgment under Rule 60(b)(1) and denial of an extension of the appeal period. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's rulings, finding no reversible error. The Fourth Circuit relied on the reasoning of the district court in its decision.

    Copyright:

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

    Richardson v. Dept of Corr VA, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding an appeal filed by Clifton H. Richardson of the district court's denial of his motion to vacate judgment under Rule 60(b)(1) and denial of an extension of the appeal period. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's rulings, finding no reversible error. The Fourth Circuit relied on the reasoning of the district court in its decision.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 96-7045

    CLIFTON H. RICHARDSON,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; J. A.
    SMITH, Sergeant; SERGEANT BERRY; M. LEFEVER,
    Ms.; RUFUS FLEMING, Warden; R. A. YOUNG,
    Regional Director; A. C. DOWNS, Reporting
    Officer,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior
    District Judge. (CA-95-706)
    Submitted:

    September 20, 1996

    Decided:

    October 2, 1996

    Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.


    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Clifton H. Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. Jill Theresa Bowers,
    OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
    Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his
    motion to vacate judgment filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
    Procedure 60(b)(1) and denying his request for an extension of the
    appeal period. We have reviewed the record and the district court's
    opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the
    reasoning of the district court. Richardson v. Virginia Dep't of
    Corr., No. CA-95-706 (E.D. Va. May 28, 1996). 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