Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Clark v. Conoco, Incorporated, 00-1848 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-1848 Visitors: 13
Filed: Sep. 06, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1848 MICHAEL CRAIG CLARK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CONOCO, INCORPORATED, at 1321 Tunnel Road, Asheville, North Carolina; CONOCO, INCORPO- RATED, at 1705 Patton Avenue, Asheville, North Carolina; BASILICA OF ST. LAWRENCE DM; AARON BAPTIST CHURCH; ABERNETHY UNITED METHODIST; ABIDING SAVIOUR LUTHERAN CHURCH; ABUNDANT LIFE ASSEMBLY; ALL SAINTS ANGLICAN CHURCH; ALLENS CREEK BAPTIST CHURCH; ANTIOCH CHURCH; ARDEN CHURCH OF TH
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1848 MICHAEL CRAIG CLARK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CONOCO, INCORPORATED, at 1321 Tunnel Road, Asheville, North Carolina; CONOCO, INCORPO- RATED, at 1705 Patton Avenue, Asheville, North Carolina; BASILICA OF ST. LAWRENCE DM; AARON BAPTIST CHURCH; ABERNETHY UNITED METHODIST; ABIDING SAVIOUR LUTHERAN CHURCH; ABUNDANT LIFE ASSEMBLY; ALL SAINTS ANGLICAN CHURCH; ALLENS CREEK BAPTIST CHURCH; ANTIOCH CHURCH; ARDEN CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE; ARDEN FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH; ARDEN MISSIONARY BAPTIST; ARDEN PRES- BYTERIAN CHURCH; ARDEN SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST; ASBURY MEMORIAL UM CHURCH; CHURCH OF GOD OF PROPHECY; CHURCH OF GOD; LATTER DAY SAINTS; CHURCH OF THE REDEEMER EPISCOPAL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (CA-00-114-1-T) 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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 dis- missing his civil action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(e) (West Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opin- ion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Clark v. Conoco, Inc., No. CA-00-114-1-T (W.D.N.C. June 13, 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