Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Givens v. Main Street Financial Services, 10-2082 (2011)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 10-2082 Visitors: 46
Filed: Feb. 16, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-2082 GREG GIVENS, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. MAIN STREET FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION, Holding company for Main Street Bank; REBECCA RANDOLPH; RICHARD LUCAS; WILLIAM CRISWELL; KEVIN GESSLER; KEITH C. GAMBLE; PULLIN, FOWLER, FLANAGAN, BROWN & POE, PLLC; CITY OF WHEELING, West Virginia, individually and collectively, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virgin
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-2082 GREG GIVENS, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. MAIN STREET FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION, Holding company for Main Street Bank; REBECCA RANDOLPH; RICHARD LUCAS; WILLIAM CRISWELL; KEVIN GESSLER; KEITH C. GAMBLE; PULLIN, FOWLER, FLANAGAN, BROWN & POE, PLLC; CITY OF WHEELING, West Virginia, individually and collectively, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. John S. Kaull, Magistrate Judge. (5:10-cv-00027-FPS-JSK) Submitted: February 10, 2011 Decided: February 16, 2011 Before WILKINSON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Greg Givens, Appellant Pro Se. Keith C. Gamble, PULLIN, FOWLER, FLANAGAN, BROWN & POE, PLLC, Morgantown, West Virginia; Lee Murray Hall, Arnold John Janicker, Nathanial Adam Kuratomi, JENKINS FENSTERMAKER, PLLC, Huntington, West Virginia; Stephen Mark Fowler, PULLIN, FOWLER, FLANAGAN, BROWN & POE, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Greg Givens appeals from the district court’s orders sanctioning Givens and denying his request for counsel. On October 28, 2010, the district court entered an order granting Givens’ motion to remand the case to state court and vacating the sanction order. In light of the district court’s subsequent order and the fact that the case is no longer pending in federal court, we dismiss the appeal as moot. 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. DISMISSED 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