Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

95-1934 (1995)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-1934 Visitors: 32
Filed: Aug. 09, 1995
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 62 F.3d 1414 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Stephen L. KISH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NORTH CAROLINA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION; Robert W. Fisher, Secretary, North Carolina Industrial Commission; Diane Sellers, Chief Deputy Commissioner, North Carolina Industrial Commission;
More

62 F.3d 1414

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Stephen L. KISH, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
NORTH CAROLINA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION; Robert W. Fisher,
Secretary, North Carolina Industrial Commission; Diane
Sellers, Chief Deputy Commissioner, North Carolina
Industrial Commission; State of North Carolina; Meiwa USA,
Incorporated; Underwriters Adjusting Company, c/o Tokio
Fire and Marine, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 95-1934.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted July 18, 1995.
Decided Aug. 9, 1995.

Stephen L. Kish, Appellant Pro Se. James Peeler Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, NC; Kari Lynn Russwurm, CRANFILL, SUMNER & HARTZOG, Raleigh, NC, for Appellees.

Before WILKINS and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, 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. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Kish v. North Carolina Industrial Comm'n, No. CA-93-79-3-MU (W.D.N.C. Mar. 31, 1995). 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