Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Viswanathan v. Columbus Cnty Bd Ed, 99-2132 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-2132 Visitors: 9
Filed: Nov. 09, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2132 TENKASI M. VISWANATHAN, Dr., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COLUMBUS COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CA-97-231-7-F) Submitted: November 4, 1999 Decided: November 9, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ten
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2132 TENKASI M. VISWANATHAN, Dr., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COLUMBUS COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CA-97-231-7-F) Submitted: November 4, 1999 Decided: November 9, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tenkasi M. Viswanathan, Appellant Pro Se. Clay Allen Collier, Andrew John Hanley, CROSSLEY, MCINTOSH, PRIOR & COLLIER, Wilming- ton, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Tenkasi M. Viswanathan appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his civil action and denying relief on Appellant’s various pre-judgment and post-judgment motions. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Viswanathan v. Columbus County Board of Education, No. CA-97-231-7-F (E.D.N.C. July 12; June 15; June 3; May 21; and Apr. 29, 1999 & July 30; July 28; July 27; July 15; and July 13, 1998). We deny Appellant’s motion to file supplemental material to the extent he seeks to file documents which are not part of the district court record. We further deny Appellee’s motion to dis- miss the appeal. See 4th Cir. R. 27(f). 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