Skip to main content
Find a Lawyer

MEYERS v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT (2019)

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

David MEYERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, Big Stone Gap Division; United States District Court, Roanoke Division; United States District Court, Abingdon Division; Judicial Council Circuit Executive of Fourth Circuit; T. Dorton, Fiscal Tech of Red Onion State Prison; Marcus Elam; A. Galihar; Karen Stapleton; Jeffrey Kiser; J. Artrip; M. L. Counts; L. Mullins; J. Fannin; J. D. Bentley; K. B. Counts; J. H. Middleton; J. King; Tammy Barbetto; W. Swiney; J. M. Messer; J. B. Messer; Shannon Escoffery; Officer Rose C. Stallard; T. L. Woods; R. Mullis; R. Nauvy; A. Kilgore; F. Stanley; A. Clevinger; L. Justice; C. Holbrook; J. Bledsoe; B. Witt; Dr. Fox; Dr. Edward Boakye; C. Dickerson; D. W. Mccowan; C. C. Gilbert; J. E. Lyall; J. Mannor; Henry Ponton; C. R. Stanley; Officer Stanley; Officer Wells; Edward Gwinn; Brandy Lewis; D. Stallard; L. Collins, Defendants - Appellees.

David Meyers, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. United States District Court, Roanoke Division; Harold Clarke, Director, VADOC, Defendants - Appellees.

David Meyers, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. Director Harold Clarke; United States District Court Abingdon Division; United States District Court Big Stone Gap Division; Judicial Council of Fourth Circuit; Circuit Executive James N. Ishida, Respondents - Appellees.

No. 18-7414, No. 18-7418, No. 18-7423

Decided: May 21, 2019

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

David Meyers, Appellant Pro Se.

In these consolidated appeals, David Meyers appeals the district court's orders dismissing his petitions for a writ of mandamus. We have reviewed the records and find no abuse of discretion. See Gurley v. Superior Ct. of Mecklenburg Cty., 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969) (stating standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Meyers v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 7:18-cv-00472-MFU-RSB (W.D. Va. Nov. 2, 2018); Meyers v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 7:18-cv-00474-MFU-RSB (W.D. Va. Nov. 2, 2018); Meyers v. Clarke, 7:18-cv-00460-MFU-RSB (W.D. Va. Nov. 2, 2018). We also deny Meyers’ motion to vacate the collection of fees order. 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

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Was this helpful?

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go to Learn About the Law

MEYERS v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT (2019)

Docket No: No. 18-7414, No. 18-7418, No. 18-7423

Decided: May 21, 2019

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Need to find an attorney?

Search our directory by legal issue

Enter information in one or both fields (Required)

    More Options

    For Legal Professionals

    Get a profile on the #1 online legal directory

    Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.

    Sign up

    Learn About the Law

    Get help with your legal needs

    FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.

    Go to Learn About the Law

    Need to find an attorney?

    Search our directory by legal issue

    Enter information in one or both fields (Required)

      More Options
      Copied to clipboard