Case ID: f-appx_6/html/0171-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

William P. HALEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHESAPEAKE’S PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM; Randolph Nichols, Doctor, Superintendent of the Chesapeake Public Schools; James S. Gilmore, III, Governor of Virginia; Mark L. Earley, Attorney General of Virginia; Wilbert Bryant, Virginia’s Secretary of Education; Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Education; Commonwealth of Virginia; Jo Lynne Demary, State Superintendent of Public Instruction; United States of America; Bill Clinton, President of the United States of America; Richard W. Riley, America’s Secretary of Education; Janet Reno, Attorney General of America; City of Chesapeake, Virginia; William Ward, Chesapeake’s Mayor; Ronald Hallman, Chesapeake City Attorney; John L. Pazour, City Manager of Chesapeake, Virginia, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 00-2491.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted March 22, 2001.
    Decided March 27, 2001.
    William P. Haley, pro se. Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, Ronald Curtis Forehand, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Ashley Lionel Taylor, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Alton Andrew Martin, Alison Paige Landry, Rita R. Woltz, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, VA; Kent Pendleton Porter, Office of the United States Attorney; Darlene Paige Bradberry, Breeden, Salb, Beasley & Duvall, Norfolk, VA, for appellees.
    Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

William P. Haley appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of the court’s order denying relief in his 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. Haley v. Chesapeake’s Public School Sys., No. CA-00-520-2 (E.D.Va. filed Nov. 9, 2000; entered Nov. 13, 2000). We deny as moot Haley’s motion to expedite the appeal. 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.