Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Charles S. Briles v. Sandy Henderson Briles Surratt Wachovia Bank and Trust Company, N.A., 96-2008 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-2008 Visitors: 9
Filed: Nov. 15, 1996
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 101 F.3d 695 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Charles S. BRILES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sandy Henderson Briles SURRATT; Wachovia Bank and Trust Company, N.A., Defendants-Appellees. No. 96-2008. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted Sept. 17, 1996. De
More

101 F.3d 695

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Charles S. BRILES, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Sandy Henderson Briles SURRATT; Wachovia Bank and Trust
Company, N.A., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 96-2008.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 17, 1996.
Decided Nov. 15, 1996.

Charles S. Briles, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Forester Griffin, Greensboro, North Carolina; Ellen M. Gregg, WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellees.

M.D.N.C.

AFFIRMED.

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals from the district court's order granting Defendants' motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. 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. Briles v. Surratt, No. CA-95-624-2 (M.D.N.C. June 18, 1996). Appellant's motions for general relief, including his requests to present additional points and to present argument against Appellee Surratt's brief, are denied. 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.

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