Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

103 F.3d 119

Docket No. 95-2351.

Prescott v. Hall

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 12, 1996. Decided Dec. 4, 1996.

Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently July 1999 · most notably David C. O'Grady v. MCI Telecommunications Corporation (1996), Rock-Tenn Co. v. United Paperworkers International Union (1999)

29 federal appellate ·

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1996-12-04

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Stuart L. Prescott, Appellant Pro Se.

Stephen Michael Sayers, Bradley R. Duncan, HUNTON & WILLIAMS, McLean, Virginia; John Adrian Gibney, Jr., SHUFORD, RUBIN & GIBNEY, Richmond, Virginia; Richard Ball Baker, WILLIAMS KELLY & GREER, Norfolk, Virginia; Allan Simpson Reynolds, Sr., REYNOLDS, SMITH & WINTERS, P.C., Norfolk, Virginia; Douglas Pendleton Rucker, Jr., Elaine Richardson Jordan, SANDS, ANDERSON, MARKS & MILLER, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

E.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

¶1

Appellant appeals the district court's orders dismissing with prejudice his RICO and civil rights actions. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Prescott v. Hall, Nos. CA-93-40-4; CA-93-46-4 (E.D. Va. June 19, 1995). 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

/103/f3d/119 · .json · Public domain