Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Douglas F. Miller v. Philip Morris, Inc., 92-2565 (1993)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 92-2565 Visitors: 19
Filed: Feb. 17, 1993
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 986 F.2d 1414 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Douglas F. MILLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PHILIP MORRIS, INC., Defendant-Appellee. No. 92-2565. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted: February 1, 1993 Decided: February 17, 1993 Appeal from the United States
More

986 F.2d 1414

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Douglas F. MILLER, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
PHILIP MORRIS, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 92-2565.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: February 1, 1993
Decided: February 17, 1993

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-92-615-R)

Douglas Fitzpatrick Miller, Appellant Pro Se.

Lewis Thomas Booker, Hunton & Williams, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

E.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before HALL and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER,* Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Douglas Fitzpatrick Miller 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 discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Miller v. Philip Morris, Inc., No. CA-92-615-R (E.D. Va. Dec. 2, 1992). 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

*

Senior Judge Butzner did not participate in consideration of this case. The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d)

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