Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Barnett v. Gonzales, 06-2303 (2007)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 06-2303 Visitors: 50
Filed: Jun. 15, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-2303 EARL BARNETT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief District Judge. (1:05-cv-00058-IMK-JS) Submitted: May 30, 2007 Decided: June 15, 2007 Before MICHAEL, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Earl Barn
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-2303 EARL BARNETT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief District Judge. (1:05-cv-00058-IMK-JS) Submitted: May 30, 2007 Decided: June 15, 2007 Before MICHAEL, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Earl Barnett, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel W. Dickinson, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Earl T. Barnett appeals the district court order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge in part and rejecting it in part, granting Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ motion for summary judgment, and dismissing Barnett’s civil action with prejudice. Barnett also appeals the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration of that order. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Barnett v. Gonzales, No. 1:05-cv-00058-IMK-JS (N.D. W. Va. Sept. 27 & Nov. 9, 2006). 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 -
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