U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2000

Davis v. City of Clarksburg

Davis v. City of Clarksburg
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided March 29, 2000

Davis v. City of Clarksburg

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-2592

MAURICE A. DAVIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus

CITY OF CLARKSBURG SANITARY BOARD; THE CITY OF CLARKSBURG, a Municipal Corporation and other local government authorities; FRANK SCARCELLI; WOODY THRASHER; TIM MICHEL; PERCY ASHCRAFT, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Robert Earl Maxwell, Senior District Judge. (CA-99-163)

Submitted: March 23, 2000 Decided: March 29, 2000

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Maurice A. Davis, Appellant Pro Se. John Andrew Smith, SMITH, CON- LEY & WELLBORN, Charleston, West Virginia; Gary Thomas Smith, Paul V. Morrison, II, WATERS, WARNER & HARRIS, Clarksburg, West Vir- ginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Maurice A. Davis appeals the district court’s order granting the Defendants’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion and dismissing this civil action. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Davis v. City of Clarks- burg No. CA-99-163 (N.D.W. Va. Nov. 1, 1999). As Davis’s “summons in a civil case” is inapropo to this proceeding, we construe it as a motion for general relief and deny it as such. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate- ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.