Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Claude Raymond Curry v. John Boettner, Jr. Unknown Agent or Legal Entity, Liable for Neglect of Duty to His Client the by Attorney John Boettner, Jr., 91-7698 (1992)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 91-7698 Visitors: 16
Filed: Feb. 04, 1992
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 953 F.2d 637 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Claude Raymond CURRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John BOETTNER, Jr.; Unknown Agent or Legal Entity, Liable for Neglect of Duty to his Client the Plaintiff by Attorney John Boettner, Jr., Defendants-Appellees. No. 91-7698. United Stat
More

953 F.2d 637

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Claude Raymond CURRY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
John BOETTNER, Jr.; Unknown Agent or Legal Entity, Liable
for Neglect of Duty to his Client the Plaintiff by
Attorney John Boettner, Jr., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 91-7698.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 20, 1991.
Decided Feb. 4, 1992.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden, II, Chief District Judge. (CA-91-262)

Claude Raymond Curry, appellant pro se.

John Boettner, Jr., Charleston, W.Va., for appellees.

S.D.W.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before PHILLIPS, NIEMEYER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

1

Claude Raymond Curry appeals from the district court's order denying relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988). Our review of the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.* Curry v. Boettner, No. CA-91-262 (S.D.W.Va. Sept. 3, 1991). 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.

2

AFFIRMED.

*

Curry's Requests for Judicial Notice, Request for Information, and Motion for Ruling for Appellant are hereby denied

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