Charles Dowdell, Sr. v. Love's Travel Stop ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 13-1990
    CHARLES DOWDELL, SR.,
    Plaintiff – Appellant,
    v.
    LOVE'S TRAVEL STOP,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke.     Glen E. Conrad, Chief
    District Judge. (7:12-cv-00516-GEC)
    Submitted:   October 22, 2013             Decided:   October 24, 2013
    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Charles Dowdell, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Matthew David Green,
    MORRIS & MORRIS, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Charles    Dowdell,       Sr.,       appeals    the    district          court’s
    orders dismissing his civil action for failure to state a claim.
    We   have      reviewed    the     record      and     find    no    reversible         error.
    Accordingly,       although        we    grant       leave     to    proceed       in    forma
    pauperis, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the
    district court.           Dowdell v. Love’s Travel Stop, No. 7:12-cv-
    00516-GEC (W.D. Va., Feb. 20, 2013; July 12, 2013); see also 4th
    Cir. R. 34(b) (limiting appellate review to issues raised in
    informal brief); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 
    556 U.S. 662
    , 679 (2009)
    (holding that complaint may survive motion to dismiss only if it
    “states a plausible claim for relief” that “permit[s] the court
    to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct” based
    upon    “its    judicial        experience      and    common       sense”);    Winn-Dixie
    Stores,     Inc. v.       Parker,       
    396 S.E.2d 649
    ,      650-51     (Va.      1990)
    (providing requirements for premises liability claim in slip-
    and-fall    case).         We    dispense      with     oral    argument       because       the
    facts    and    legal     contentions         are    adequately       presented         in   the
    materials       before    this     court      and     argument      would    not    aid      the
    decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-1990

Judges: Wilkinson, Niemeyer, Thacker

Filed Date: 10/24/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024