Filed: Sep. 27, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1788 EDWARD E. STROUPE, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TANDY CORPORATION; RADIO SHACK; TRANSPORTATION INSURANCE COMPANY; RSKCO, formerly known as CNA Insurance; RAMESH MURTHY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virignia, at Abingdon. Glen M. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-81-1) Submitted: September 19, 2002 Decided: September 27, 2002 Before WILKINS,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1788 EDWARD E. STROUPE, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TANDY CORPORATION; RADIO SHACK; TRANSPORTATION INSURANCE COMPANY; RSKCO, formerly known as CNA Insurance; RAMESH MURTHY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virignia, at Abingdon. Glen M. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-81-1) Submitted: September 19, 2002 Decided: September 27, 2002 Before WILKINS, ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1788 EDWARD E. STROUPE, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TANDY CORPORATION; RADIO SHACK; TRANSPORTATION INSURANCE COMPANY; RSKCO, formerly known as CNA Insurance; RAMESH MURTHY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virignia, at Abingdon. Glen M. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-81-1) Submitted: September 19, 2002 Decided: September 27, 2002 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edward E. Stroupe, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Rebecca Everett Kuehn, LECLAIR RYAN, P.C., Alexandria, Virginia; William W. Eskridge, PENN, STUART & ESKRIDGE, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Edward E. Stroupe, Jr., appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action. 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 Stroupe v. Radio Shack, No. CA-02-81-1 (W.D. Va. July 3, 2002). We deny Stroupe’s “Motion for Waiver.” 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