Scribd
Upload
52 views4 pages

Unpublished

This document summarizes three consolidated appeals of a district court case in which Erwin Patterson sued multiple defendants. The district court dismissed all defendants from the civil action. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error. Accordingly, the appeals court affirmed the district court's rulings dismissing all defendants.

Uploaded by

Scribd Government Docs
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
52 views4 pages

Unpublished

This document summarizes three consolidated appeals of a district court case in which Erwin Patterson sued multiple defendants. The district court dismissed all defendants from the civil action. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error. Accordingly, the appeals court affirmed the district court's rulings dismissing all defendants.

Uploaded by

Scribd Government Docs
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1796

ERWIN B. PATTERSON, JR.,


Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CITY OF CHESAPEAKE; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; STEPHEN E.
MILLS;
JOHN
C.
LUMPKIN
P.C.;
TEIDE
ENTERPRISES,
INCORPORATED; TOWNE BANK; CITY OF NORFOLK POLICE DEPARTMENT;
CITY OF CHESAPEAKE POLICE DEPARTMENT; WILLIAM T. HODSDEN;
W.A. COPELAND; STUART GORDON; CITY OF NORFOLK; CLARENDON
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants - Appellees.

No. 08-1928

ERWIN B. PATTERSON, JR.,


Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CITY OF CHESAPEAKE; STEPHEN E. MILLS; JOHN C. LUMPKIN P.C.;
TEIDE ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED; CITY OF CHESAPEAKE POLICE
DEPARTMENT; STUART GORDON; CLARENDON NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendants Appellees,
and

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; TOWNE BANK; CITY OF NORFOLK POLICE


DEPARTMENT; WILLIAM T. HODSDEN; W.A. COPELAND; CITY OF
NORFOLK,
Defendants.

No. 08-2268

ERWIN B. PATTERSON, JR.,


Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JOHN C. LUMPKIN P.C.,
Defendant Appellee,
and
CITY OF CHESAPEAKE; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; STEPHEN E.
MILLS; TEIDE ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED; TOWNE BANK; CITY OF
NORFOLK POLICE DEPARTMENT; CITY OF CHESAPEAKE POLICE
DEPARTMENT; WILLIAM T. HODSDEN; W.A. COPELAND; STUART
GORDON; CITY OF NORFOLK; CLARENDON NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendants.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (2:07-cv-00611-RAJ-FBS)

Submitted:

February 19, 2009

Decided:

February 23, 2009

Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


2

Erwin B. Patterson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.


Catherine Hanson
Lindley, Grady A. Palmer, CHESAPEAKE CITY ATTORNEYS OFFICE,
Chesapeake, Virginia, Stephen Michael Hall, Assistant Attorney
General, Richmond, Virginia, Marshall Allen Winslow, Jr.,
WOLCOTT, RIVERS & GATES, Virginia Beach, Virginia, Sara Ashley
John, M. RICHARD EPPS, PC, Virginia Beach, Virginia, Robert
Henry Burger, WILLIAMS MULLEN, Virginia Beach, Virginia, Andrew
Richard Fox, Assistant City Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, Joseph
Franklin Verser, JONES, BLECHMAN, WOLTZ & KELLY, PC, Newport
News, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated cases, Erwin B. Patterson, Jr.,
seeks

to

dismissing

appeal
all

the

district

defendants

from

courts
this

orders

civil

action.

reviewed the record and find no reversible error.


we

affirm

for

the

reasons

stated

by

cumulatively

the

We

have

Accordingly,

district

court.

Patterson v. City of Chesapeake, No. 2:07-cv-00611-RAJ-FBS (E.D.


Va. June 20, 2008;
Oct. 2, 2008).

Aug. 8, 2008; filed Sept. 30 & entered

We further grant Pattersons motion to proceed

on appeal in forma pauperis, but deny his motion to admit new


evidence.
legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

contentions
the

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

You might also like