Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Clark v. Crown Central Petroleum, 00-1879 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-1879 Visitors: 43
Filed: Sep. 06, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1879 MICHAEL CRAIG CLARK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CROWN CENTRAL PETROLEUM, INCORPORATED; CROWN CENTRAL PETROLEUM, INCORPORATED SERVICE STA- TIONS; MISSION VALLEY 66; EASTGATE SHELL SER- VICE; DECARLO WILLIAMSON; FRANK SUMMERFIELD; UNIFICATION CHURCH; CATHEDRAL OF THE SACRED HEART; BIBLE BAPTIST; CALVARY BAPTIST CHURCH; GENESIS UNITED METHODIST; HAYES BARTON UNITED METHODIST; CARY FIRST UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST; COMMUNI
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1879 MICHAEL CRAIG CLARK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CROWN CENTRAL PETROLEUM, INCORPORATED; CROWN CENTRAL PETROLEUM, INCORPORATED SERVICE STA- TIONS; MISSION VALLEY 66; EASTGATE SHELL SER- VICE; DECARLO WILLIAMSON; FRANK SUMMERFIELD; UNIFICATION CHURCH; CATHEDRAL OF THE SACRED HEART; BIBLE BAPTIST; CALVARY BAPTIST CHURCH; GENESIS UNITED METHODIST; HAYES BARTON UNITED METHODIST; CARY FIRST UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST; COMMUNITY UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST; CHRIST TEMPLE OF THE APOSTOLIC FAITH; EMMANUEL PENTE- COSTAL HOLINESS CHURCH; FIRST UNITED PENTE- COSTAL CHURCH; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-392-5-BO) Submitted: August 30, 2000 Decided: September 6, 2000 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Craig Clark, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Michael Craig Clark appeals the district court’s order dismss- ing his civil action as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(e) (West Supp. 2000). 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 Clark v. Crown Central Petroleum, Inc., No. CA-00-392-5-BO (E.D.N.C. June 21, 2000). 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