Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 9 views

    McLendon v. United States, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Juan McLendon filed an action under the Federal Torts Claims Act against the United States, which the district court denied. McLendon then filed a motion to amend his complaint, which was also denied. McLendon appealed both rulings. The appeals court affirmed the district court's rulings, finding no reversible error. The appeals court determined the facts and legal arguments were adequately explained in the case materials and no oral arguments were needed.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    McLendon v. United States, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    9 views2 pages
    Juan McLendon filed an action under the Federal Torts Claims Act against the United States, which the district court denied. McLendon then filed a motion to amend his complaint, which was also denied. McLendon appealed both rulings. The appeals court affirmed the district court's rulings, finding no reversible error. The appeals court determined the facts and legal arguments were adequately explained in the case materials and no oral arguments were needed.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2007-04-25 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 07-6154

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Juan McLendon filed an action under the Federal Torts Claims Act against the United States, which the district court denied. McLendon then filed a motion to amend his complaint, which was also denied. McLendon appealed both rulings. The appeals court affirmed the district court's rulings, finding no reversible error. The appeals court determined the facts and legal arguments were adequately explained in the case materials and no oral arguments were needed.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    9 views2 pages

    McLendon v. United States, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Juan McLendon filed an action under the Federal Torts Claims Act against the United States, which the district court denied. McLendon then filed a motion to amend his complaint, which was also denied. McLendon appealed both rulings. The appeals court affirmed the district court's rulings, finding no reversible error. The appeals court determined the facts and legal arguments were adequately explained in the case materials and no oral arguments were needed.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 07-6154

    JUAN P. MCLENDON,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Defendant - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
    Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
    District Judge. (7:06-cv-00655-jlk)

    Submitted:

    April 19, 2007

    Decided:

    April 25, 2007

    Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Juan P. McLendon, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Juan P. McLendon appeals the district courts orders
    denying relief on his action filed under the Federal Torts Claims
    Act and denying his motion to amend the complaint.
    reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

    We have

    Accordingly, we

    affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.

    McLendon v.

    United States, No. 7:06-cv-00655-jlk (W.D. Va. Dec. 14, 2006;


    Jan. 11, 2007).

    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

    - 2 -

    You might also like