Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Keltner v. Shaver, 01-2370 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-2370 Visitors: 18
Filed: Feb. 21, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-2370 ROBERT E. KELTNER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HOLMES R. SHAVER, individually and as Presi- dent of the Wood County Commission; DAVID A. COUCH, individually and as member of the Wood County Commission; ROBERT K. TEBAY, indi- vidually and as member of the Wood County Commission; KEITH LITTON, individually and as a duly appointed officer of the Wood County Commission; MICHAEL BALZANO; LOUIS BALZANO, d/b/a Eddies Auto P
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-2370 ROBERT E. KELTNER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HOLMES R. SHAVER, individually and as Presi- dent of the Wood County Commission; DAVID A. COUCH, individually and as member of the Wood County Commission; ROBERT K. TEBAY, indi- vidually and as member of the Wood County Commission; KEITH LITTON, individually and as a duly appointed officer of the Wood County Commission; MICHAEL BALZANO; LOUIS BALZANO, d/b/a Eddies Auto Parts Company, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virinia, at Parkersburg. Robert C. Chambers, District Judge. (CA-00-1162-6) Submitted: February 14, 2002 Decided: February 21, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert E. Keltner, Appellant Pro Se. Mark William Browning, SHUMAN, MCCLUSKEY & SLICER, P.L.L.C., Charleston, West Virginia; David Edward Schumacher, SCHUMACHER, FRANCIS & NELSON, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Robert E. Keltner appeals two separate district court orders granting the Appellees’ motions for summary judgment on his civil action alleging that various vehicles were improperly removed from his property. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Keltner v. Shaver, No. CA-00-1162-6 (S.D.W. Va. filed Oct. 12, 2001; entered Oct. 15, 2001). 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