Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Zhang v. Charles Town Races, 04-1187 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-1187 Visitors: 10
Filed: Jul. 20, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1187 JEFF ZHANG, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHARLES TOWN RACES & SLOTS; AMEET PATEL; DIANA MONTENEGRO; DAVID HARDY; RICHARD JUDD; REBECCA AMSLER; MORGAN LONG; LEE POMPELL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Irene M. Kelley, Chief District Judge. (CA-03-52-3) Submitted: July 15, 2004 Decided: July 20, 2004 Before MOTZ, KING, and
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1187 JEFF ZHANG, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHARLES TOWN RACES & SLOTS; AMEET PATEL; DIANA MONTENEGRO; DAVID HARDY; RICHARD JUDD; REBECCA AMSLER; MORGAN LONG; LEE POMPELL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Irene M. Kelley, Chief District Judge. (CA-03-52-3) Submitted: July 15, 2004 Decided: July 20, 2004 Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeff Zhang, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Michael Peterson, BOWLES, RICE, MCDAVID, GRAFF & LOVE, P.L.L.C., Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Jeff Zhang appeals the district court’s order and judgment dismissing in part and remanding in part his complaint and amended complaint that raised several claims against Charles Town Races and Slots and several of its employees. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm in part for the reasons stated by the district court. See Zhang v. Charles Town Races, No. CA-03-52-3 (N.D.W. Va., Jan. 28, 2004). We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction that part of the appeal remanding the case to state court. 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 IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART - 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