Filed: Jun. 05, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1216 GEORGE E. BURDICK, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PRITCHETT & BIRCH, PLLC; LLOYD C. SMITH, JR.; REGINA PARKER; SAMUEL GRIMES; CHRISTOPHER B. MCLENDON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (4:08-cv-00053-BO) Submitted: May 28, 2009 Decided: June 5, 2009 Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1216 GEORGE E. BURDICK, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PRITCHETT & BIRCH, PLLC; LLOYD C. SMITH, JR.; REGINA PARKER; SAMUEL GRIMES; CHRISTOPHER B. MCLENDON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (4:08-cv-00053-BO) Submitted: May 28, 2009 Decided: June 5, 2009 Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges...
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1216 GEORGE E. BURDICK, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PRITCHETT & BIRCH, PLLC; LLOYD C. SMITH, JR.; REGINA PARKER; SAMUEL GRIMES; CHRISTOPHER B. MCLENDON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (4:08-cv-00053-BO) Submitted: May 28, 2009 Decided: June 5, 2009 Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George E. Burdick, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Graham Baker, BAKER, JENKINS, JONES & DALY, PA, Ahoskie, North Carolina, Grady L. Balentine, Jr., Special Deputy Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: George E. Burdick appeals the district court’s orders granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss his civil complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denying his subsequent motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Burdick v. Pritchett & Birch, PLLC, No. 4:08-cv-00053-BO (E.D.N.C. Nov. 17, 2008; Jan. 22, 2009). 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