Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Givens v. Randolph, 10-2164 (2011)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 10-2164 Visitors: 23
Filed: Mar. 04, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-2164 DENNIS A. GIVENS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. REBECCA RANDOLPH; MAIN STREET FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION (Holding Co. for) Main Street Bank; KEITH C. GAMBLE; PULLIN, FOWLER, FLANAGAN, BROWN & POE, PLLC, individually, and collectively, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:10-cv-0002
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-2164 DENNIS A. GIVENS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. REBECCA RANDOLPH; MAIN STREET FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION (Holding Co. for) Main Street Bank; KEITH C. GAMBLE; PULLIN, FOWLER, FLANAGAN, BROWN & POE, PLLC, individually, and collectively, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:10-cv-00026-FPS-JSK) Submitted: February 28, 2011 Decided: March 4, 2011 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dennis A. Givens, Appellant Pro Se. Keith C. Gamble, PULLIN, FOWLER, FLANAGAN, BROWN & POE, PLLC, Morgantown, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Dennis A. Givens appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Givens v. Randolph, No. 5:10-cv-00026- FBS-JSK (N.D.W. Va. Aug. 12, 2010 & Sept. 15, 2010). 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