Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Gardner v. Carter, 99-1884 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-1884 Visitors: 19
Filed: Oct. 26, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1884 JAMES A. GARDNER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CLARENCE H. CARTER, Commissioner, Virginia De- partment of Social Services; CHERYL A. WILKER- SON, Assistant Attorney General of Virginia; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith and Jerome B. Friedman, District Judges. (CA-98-1489-2) Submitted: Octobe
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1884 JAMES A. GARDNER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CLARENCE H. CARTER, Commissioner, Virginia De- partment of Social Services; CHERYL A. WILKER- SON, Assistant Attorney General of Virginia; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith and Jerome B. Friedman, District Judges. (CA-98-1489-2) Submitted: October 21, 1999 Decided: October 26, 1999 Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James A. Gardner, Appellant Pro Se. Alice Ann Berkebile, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia; Michael Anson Rhine, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: James A. Gardner appeals the district court’s order dismissing his claim for damages regarding adjustments in his food stamps benefits. 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. See Gardner v. Carter, No. CA-98-1489-2 (E.D. Va. Apr. 30, 1999). 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 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer