Filed: Sep. 17, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1858 CLARENCE C. MOORE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHURCH HILL HOUSE/AGENT WINN MANAGEMENT, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (CA-03-165) Submitted: September 11, 2003 Decided: September 17, 2003 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clarence C. Mo
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1858 CLARENCE C. MOORE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHURCH HILL HOUSE/AGENT WINN MANAGEMENT, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (CA-03-165) Submitted: September 11, 2003 Decided: September 17, 2003 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clarence C. Moo..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1858 CLARENCE C. MOORE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHURCH HILL HOUSE/AGENT WINN MANAGEMENT, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (CA-03-165) Submitted: September 11, 2003 Decided: September 17, 2003 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clarence C. Moore, Appellant Pro Se. John Kirkland Burke, Jr., TROUTMAN SANDERS, L.L.P., Richmond, Virginia; Jason Christopher Roper, TROUTMAN SANDERS, L.L.P., Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Clarence C. Moore appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action against Church Hill House and Winn Management. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Moore v. Church Hill House, No. CA-03-165 (E.D. Va. June 18, 2003). 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
