Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Thompson v. VA Dept Game, 06-1634 (2006)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 06-1634 Visitors: 20
Filed: Aug. 29, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1634 WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF GAME AND INLAND FISHERIES, Defendant - Appellee, and ROGER CHAFFE; DON HINCHEY; DAN HALL; MR. WOODFIN, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, Chief District Judge. (1:05-cv-00109-jpj) Submitted: August 24, 2006 Decided: August 29, 2006 Before KING, SHEDD, and DUN
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1634 WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF GAME AND INLAND FISHERIES, Defendant - Appellee, and ROGER CHAFFE; DON HINCHEY; DAN HALL; MR. WOODFIN, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, Chief District Judge. (1:05-cv-00109-jpj) Submitted: August 24, 2006 Decided: August 29, 2006 Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William C. Thompson, Appellant Pro Se. John Kenneth Byrum, Jr., OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: William C. Thompson appeals the district court’s judgment granting summary judgment to the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Thompson v. Virginia Dep’t of Game and Inland Fisheries, No. 1:05-cv-00109-jpj (W.D. Va. May 14, 2006). We also deny as moot Thompson’s motion to expedite the appeal. 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 - 3 -
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