Case ID: f-appx_10/html/0237-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Carl Anthony GRAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CITY OF NORFOLK; Paul R. Riddick; Daun S. Hester; Willie Ponds; Keela Boose, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 01-1052.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted May 31, 2001.
    Decided June 6, 2001.
    Carl Anthony Gray, pro se. M. Wayne Ringer, Daniel R. Hagemeister, City Attorney’s Office, Norfolk, VA, for appellees.
    Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Carl A Gray appeals from the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss Gray’s civil complaint originally filed in state court and removed by Defendants to the district court and denying Gray’s motions for remand, for sanctions, and to amend the complaint. We have reviewed the record, the district court’s order, the transcripts of the hearings held on December 13, 2000, and January 4, 2001, at which the district court stated from the bench its reasons for denying relief, and Gray’s informal brief filed in this court. We find no reversible error in the court’s denial of Gray’s motions to remand, to amend, and to impose sanctions. With regard to the motion to dismiss, Gray has not preserved any issue for our review because he failed to challenge the bases for the district court’s ruling on that motion. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Gray v. Board of Supervisors, No. CA-00-825-2 (E.D. Va. Dec. 13, 2000 & Jan. 4, 2001). 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.