Filed: Mar. 29, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2535 WILLIAM LEE RICHARDSON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, and WILLIAM LEE RICHARDSON, SR., Plaintiff, versus STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. W. Craig Broadwater, Dis- trict Judge. (CA-99-79-3) Submitted: March 23, 2000 Decided: March 29, 2000 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed b
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2535 WILLIAM LEE RICHARDSON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, and WILLIAM LEE RICHARDSON, SR., Plaintiff, versus STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. W. Craig Broadwater, Dis- trict Judge. (CA-99-79-3) Submitted: March 23, 2000 Decided: March 29, 2000 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2535 WILLIAM LEE RICHARDSON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, and WILLIAM LEE RICHARDSON, SR., Plaintiff, versus STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. W. Craig Broadwater, Dis- trict Judge. (CA-99-79-3) Submitted: March 23, 2000 Decided: March 29, 2000 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Lee Richardson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: William Lee Richardson, Jr., appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint against the state of West Virginia. We have reviewed Richardson’s complaint and find no reversible error in the district court’s ruling that Richardson’s claims are not justiciable. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order dismissing Richardson’s complaint. See Richardson v. West Vir- ginia, No. CA-99-79-3 (N.D.W. Va. Nov. 16, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate- ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
