Erwin B. PATTERSON, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF CHESAPEAKE; Commonwealth of Virginia; Stephen E. Mills; John C. Lumpkin P.C.; Teitle 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; 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; 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

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit2009-02-23No. Nos. 08-1796, 08-1928, 082268

312 F. App'x 573

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated cases, Erwin B. Patterson, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s orders cumulatively dismissing all defendants from this civil action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Patterson v. City of Chesapeake, No. 2:07-cv-00611-RAJ-FBS (E.D. Va. June 20, 2008; Aug. 8, 2008; filed Sept. 30 & entered Oct. 2, 2008). We further grant Patterson’s motion to proceed on appeal in forma pau-peris, but deny his motion to admit new evidence. 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.