Filed: May 02, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1152 KENNETH LEE CROW, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JANE R. BLALOCK, Defendant - Appellee, and WEST VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-99-109-5) Submitted: April 27, 2000 Decided: May 2, 2000 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Cir- cui
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1152 KENNETH LEE CROW, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JANE R. BLALOCK, Defendant - Appellee, and WEST VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-99-109-5) Submitted: April 27, 2000 Decided: May 2, 2000 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Cir- cuit..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1152 KENNETH LEE CROW, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JANE R. BLALOCK, Defendant - Appellee, and WEST VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-99-109-5) Submitted: April 27, 2000 Decided: May 2, 2000 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kenneth Lee Crow, Appellant Pro Se. David Wayne Hummel, Jr., STEPTOE & JOHNSON, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Kenneth Lee Crow appeals the district court’s order dismissing his suit for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 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 Crow v. Blalock, No. CA- 99-109-5 (N.D.W. Va. Jan. 7, 2000). Furthermore, we deny Appel- lee’s motion to dismiss as moot. Finally, we deny Appellant’s mo- tion for injunctive relief. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2