Filed: Oct. 18, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1751 WILLIAM SANFORD GADD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GARY J. THORSON; NADINE THORSON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, District Judge. (CA-99-1145-1) Submitted: October 12, 2000 Decided: October 18, 2000 Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per cur
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1751 WILLIAM SANFORD GADD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GARY J. THORSON; NADINE THORSON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, District Judge. (CA-99-1145-1) Submitted: October 12, 2000 Decided: October 18, 2000 Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curi..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1751 WILLIAM SANFORD GADD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GARY J. THORSON; NADINE THORSON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, District Judge. (CA-99-1145-1) Submitted: October 12, 2000 Decided: October 18, 2000 Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Sanford Gadd, Appellant Pro Se. McGinnis Edward Hatfield, Jr., Bluefield, West Virginia; Gil Shuga, Chandler, Arizona, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: William Sanford Gadd appeals the district court’s order grant- ing the Defendant’s motion to dismiss his civil complaint. 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 Gadd v. Thorson, No. CA-99-1145-1 (S.D.W. Va. May 16, 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
