Filed: Jan. 28, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2632 ROBERT JAMES KENNY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LOUIS FARRAKHAN, Minister; RICHMOND PUBLIC LIBRARY; BECKY’S RESTAURANT; LINDLEY T. SMITH, M.D., P.C., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-99-416-3) Submitted: January 20, 2000 Decided: January 28, 2000 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAX
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2632 ROBERT JAMES KENNY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LOUIS FARRAKHAN, Minister; RICHMOND PUBLIC LIBRARY; BECKY’S RESTAURANT; LINDLEY T. SMITH, M.D., P.C., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-99-416-3) Submitted: January 20, 2000 Decided: January 28, 2000 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXL..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2632 ROBERT JAMES KENNY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LOUIS FARRAKHAN, Minister; RICHMOND PUBLIC LIBRARY; BECKY’S RESTAURANT; LINDLEY T. SMITH, M.D., P.C., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-99-416-3) Submitted: January 20, 2000 Decided: January 28, 2000 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert James Kenny, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Robert James Kenny appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to re-open a prior case. 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 Kenny v. Farrakhan, No. CA-99-416-3 (E.D. Va. Dec. 6, 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
