Adams v. Jones , 281 F. App'x 214 ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                            UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 07-2124
    JERRY ADAMS,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    CHRIS JONES, Delegate, in his Official Capacity as Mayor for the
    City of Suffolk, Virginia; CITY OF SUFFOLK, VIRGINIA; W.
    FREEMAN, in his Official Capacity as Chief of Police for the
    City of Suffolk, Virginia; CHIEF OF POLICE ONE, in his Official
    Capacity as Chief of Police for the City of Suffolk, Virginia;
    C. PHILLIPS FERGUSON, in his Official Capacity as Commonwealth
    Attorney for the City of Suffolk, Virginia; DAVE MCALLISTER, in
    his Official Capacity as Head of Virginia State Crash Team;
    SERGEANT ONE, in his Official Capacity as a Virginia State
    Policeman; CAPTAIN ONE, in his Official Capacity as Captain of
    the Suffolk Police Department; RODHAM T. DELK, JR., Judge, in
    his Official Capacity as Judge for the Circuit Court of Suffolk,
    Virginia; CITY MANAGER ONE, in his Official Capacity as City
    Manager of the City of Suffolk, Virginia,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    No. 08-1206
    JERRY ADAMS,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    CHRIS JONES, Delegate, in his Official Capacity as Mayor for the
    City of Suffolk, Virginia; CITY OF SUFFOLK, VIRGINIA; W.
    FREEMAN, in his Official Capacity as Chief of Police for the
    City of Suffolk, Virginia; CHIEF OF POLICE ONE, in his Official
    Capacity as Chief of Police for the City of Suffolk, Virginia;
    C. PHILLIPS FERGUSON, in his Official Capacity as Commonwealth
    Attorney for the City of Suffolk, Virginia; DAVE MCALLISTER, in
    his Official Capacity as Head of Virginia State Crash Team;
    SERGEANT ONE, in his Official Capacity as a Virginia State
    Policeman; CAPTAIN ONE, in his Official Capacity as Captain of
    the Suffolk Police Department; RODHAM T. DELK, JR., Judge, in
    his Official Capacity as Judge for the Circuit Court of Suffolk,
    Virginia; CITY MANAGER ONE, in his Official Capacity as City
    Manager of the City of Suffolk, Virginia,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District
    Judge. (2:05-cv-00434-RBS)
    Submitted:   April 28, 2008                Decided:   June 17, 2008
    Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Jerry Adams, Appellant Pro Se.     William Edward Hutchings, Jr.,
    OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY, Suffolk, Virginia; Christopher
    Ambrosio, Lisa Lieberman Thatch, VANDEVENTER & BLACK, LLP, Norfolk,
    Virginia; Stephen Michael Hall, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
    VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    - 2 -
    PER CURIAM:
    Jerry   Adams    appeals   the   district   court’s   orders
    dismissing his motion filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), and
    imposing sanctions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, in the amount of
    $3500.   We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
    court.   Adams v. Jones, No. 2:05-cv-00434-RBS (E.D. Va. Oct. 25,
    2007; Nov. 14, 2007; Jan. 2, 2008; Jan. 22, 2008).      We also grant
    Adams’ unopposed motion to dismiss C. Phillips Ferguson as a party,
    and we deny Adams’ motion for discovery.
    Turning to Appellee Ferguson’s motion for damages and
    costs under Fed. R. App. P. 38, we deny the motion in light of the
    sanctions imposed by the district court and the fact that Adams has
    not filed numerous frivolous appeals in the past.       Cf. Foley v.
    Fix, 
    106 F.3d 556
    , 558 (4th Cir. 1997) (imposing $500 in damages
    and costs where appellant filed twenty-three appeals in one year);
    Vestal v. Clinton, 
    106 F.3d 553
    , 555 (4th Cir. 1997) (finding
    sanctions warranted for seven frivolous appeals in one year).      We
    warn Adams, however, that his continued pursuit of frivolous claims
    in this court may result in the award of damages or costs or other
    sanctions under Rule 38.
    - 3 -
    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
    - 4 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-2124, 08-1206

Citation Numbers: 281 F. App'x 214

Judges: Niemeyer, Motz, Traxler

Filed Date: 6/17/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024