Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 5 views

    Redditt v. Wade, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding Louise Redditt's appeal of the dismissal of her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Patricia Wade. The district court had dismissed the complaint for failure to effect service within 120 days as required. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's decision to dismiss the complaint.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    Redditt v. Wade, 4th Cir. (2006)

    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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding Louise Redditt's appeal of the dismissal of her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Patricia Wade. The district court had dismissed the complaint for failure to effect service within 120 days as required. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's decision to dismiss the complaint.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2006-05-04 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 05-2130

    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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding Louise Redditt's appeal of the dismissal of her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Patricia Wade. The district court had dismissed the complaint for failure to effect service within 120 days as required. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's decision to dismiss the complaint.

    Copyright:

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

    Redditt v. Wade, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding Louise Redditt's appeal of the dismissal of her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Patricia Wade. The district court had dismissed the complaint for failure to effect service within 120 days as required. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's decision to dismiss the complaint.

    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. 05-2130

    LOUISE REDDITT,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    and
    DOMINIQUE
    HOLLIS,
    guardian; DENEISHA
    legal guardian,

    Louise
    HOLLIS,

    Redditt,
    legal
    Louise Redditt,
    Plaintiffs,

    versus
    PATRICIA WADE,
    Defendant - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
    District Judge. (CA-02-1275-1)

    Submitted:

    April 12, 2006

    Decided:

    Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Louise Redditt, Appellant Pro Se.

    May 4, 2006

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    - 2 -

    PER CURIAM:
    Louise

    Redditt

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    order

    dismissing her complaint under 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000) against


    Defendant Patricia Wade for failure to effect service within 120
    days from the filing

    of the complaint.

    record and find no reversible error.

    We have reviewed the

    Accordingly, we affirm for

    the reasons stated by the district court.

    See Redditt v. Wade, No.

    CA-02-1275-A (E.D. Va. filed Sept. 23, 2005).

    We dispense with

    oral

    contentions

    argument

    because

    the

    facts

    and

    legal

    are

    adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument


    would not aid the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    - 3 -

    You might also like