Filed: May 19, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1279 GILBERT L. SPURLOCK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, District Judge. (CA-02-404-3) Submitted: May 13, 2004 Decided: May 19, 2004 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gilbert L. Spu
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1279 GILBERT L. SPURLOCK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, District Judge. (CA-02-404-3) Submitted: May 13, 2004 Decided: May 19, 2004 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gilbert L. Spur..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1279 GILBERT L. SPURLOCK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, District Judge. (CA-02-404-3) Submitted: May 13, 2004 Decided: May 19, 2004 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gilbert L. Spurlock, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Henson Kinney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Gilbert L. Spurlock appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action against the United States Army Corps of Engineers. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Spurlock v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, No. CA-02-404-3 (S.D.W. Va. Feb. 3, 2004). Spurlock’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied. 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 -
