Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Wilbert Thomas v. City of Huntington, West Virginia, Municipal Corporation, 93-7330 (1994)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 93-7330 Visitors: 16
Filed: Mar. 14, 1994
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 21 F.3d 424 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Wilbert THOMAS, Plaintiff Appellant, v. CITY OF HUNTINGTON, West Virginia, Municipal Corporation, Defendant Appellee. No. 93-7330. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted Feb. 17, 1994. Decided March 14, 1994. App
More

21 F.3d 424
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Wilbert THOMAS, Plaintiff Appellant,
v.
CITY OF HUNTINGTON, West Virginia, Municipal Corporation,
Defendant Appellee.

No. 93-7330.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 17, 1994.
Decided March 14, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Charles H. Haden, II, Chief District Judge. (CA-93-764-3)

Wilbert Thomas, appellant pro se.

Frederick George Staker, III, City Attorney's Office, Huntington, W VA, for appellee.

S.D.W.VA.

AFFIRMED.

Before RUSSELL, MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988) complaint. 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. Thomas v. City of Huntington, No. CA-93-764-3 (S.D.W. Va. Sept. 21, 1993). 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

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