Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

James E. Hopper v. Pneumafil Corporation, 94-2473 (1995)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 94-2473 Visitors: 36
Filed: Feb. 06, 1995
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 47 F.3d 1165 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. James E. HOPPER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PNEUMAFIL CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee. No. 94-2473. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted Jan. 19, 1995. Decided Feb. 6, 1995. James E. Hopper, Appellant Pro Se. Bef
More

47 F.3d 1165

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
James E. HOPPER, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
PNEUMAFIL CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 94-2473.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 19, 1995.
Decided Feb. 6, 1995.

James E. Hopper, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and SPROUSE, Senior Circuit Judge.

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 discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Hopper v. Pneumafil Corp., No. CA-94-106 (W.D.N.C. Nov. 10, 1994). 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