Filed: Nov. 01, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1974 JOHN ALPAR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Greenville. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CA-00-43-4-F) Submitted: October 20, 2000 Decided: November 1, 2000 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Alpar, Appellant Pro Se. U
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1974 JOHN ALPAR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Greenville. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CA-00-43-4-F) Submitted: October 20, 2000 Decided: November 1, 2000 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Alpar, Appellant Pro Se. Un..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1974 JOHN ALPAR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Greenville. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CA-00-43-4-F) Submitted: October 20, 2000 Decided: November 1, 2000 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Alpar, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: John Alpar appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint of wrongful employment practice under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (West Supp. 2000) and because it was filed after expiration of the applicable statutes of limitations. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See Alpar v. National Park Serv., No. CA-00-43-4-F (E.D.N.C. June 8, 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
