Armstrong v. Marks

No. 00-1860 (4th Cir. Sept. 6, 2000) (unpublished) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · September 6, 2000 · No. No. 00-1860

Summary

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Arthur O. Armstrong's motion for leave to file a complaint. The court found no reversible error and adopted the district court's reasoning without oral argument.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Writing for the Court
Per Curiam; Widener; Niemeyer; Williams
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decision date
September 6, 2000
Docket number
No. 00-1860
Procedural posture
Plaintiff appealed the district court's order denying his motion for leave to file a complaint.
Standard of review
The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and the district court's order for reversible error.
Precedential value
Nonprecedential; unpublished
Parties
Arthur O. Armstrong v. Benjamin S. Marks, Jr., H. Terry Hutchens, Connie Inverstine, UC Lending Corporation, Brenda Flinclum
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

pleadingsmotion to amendappellate procedurecivil procedure

Practice areas

Civil procedureAppellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the district court erred in denying Armstrong's motion for leave to file a complaint.

Holdings

  1. The district court's denial of Armstrong's motion for leave to file a complaint did not constitute reversible error and was affirmed.

Key quotations

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. (2)
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. (2)

Factual background

The opinion contains few substantive facts. Armstrong sought leave to file a complaint in the district court, and the district court denied that motion. The Fourth Circuit concluded that the record and the district court's order disclosed no reversible error.

Procedural history

The United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina denied Armstrong's motion for leave to file a complaint. Armstrong appealed, and the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's order on the district court's reasoning.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…