Filed: Oct. 22, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1042 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF CAROLINAS, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NEW HANOVER COUNTY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CA-93-113-7-BR) Submitted: October 13, 2004 Decided: October 22, 2004 Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinio
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1042 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF CAROLINAS, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NEW HANOVER COUNTY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CA-93-113-7-BR) Submitted: October 13, 2004 Decided: October 22, 2004 Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1042 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF CAROLINAS, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NEW HANOVER COUNTY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CA-93-113-7-BR) Submitted: October 13, 2004 Decided: October 22, 2004 Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Dixon Case, Jason Selig Thomas, HUNTON & WILLIAMS, L.L.P., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. E. Holt Moore, III, Assistant County Attorney, Wilmington, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Waste Management of Carolinas, Inc., appeals the district court’s order denying its motion for attorney’s fees. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Waste Management of Carolinas, Inc. v. New Hanover County, No. CA-93-113- 7-BR (E.D.N.C. Dec. 8, 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 -