Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

William Lee Fisher v. David L. High, Special Agent, Drug Enforcement Administration U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency Other Unknown Agents, 96-7029 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-7029 Visitors: 49
Filed: Nov. 20, 1996
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 103 F.3d 117 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. William Lee FISHER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David L. HIGH, Special Agent, Drug Enforcement Administration; U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency; Other Unknown Agents, Defendants-Appellees. No. 96-7029. United States Court of Appeals,
More

103 F.3d 117

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
William Lee FISHER, Plaintiff--Appellant,
v.
David L. HIGH, Special Agent, Drug Enforcement
Administration; U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency;
Other Unknown Agents, Defendants--Appellees.

No. 96-7029.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 7, 1996.
Decided Nov. 20, 1996.

William Lee Fisher, Appellant Pro Se. John Francis Corcoran, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellees.

W.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before RUSSELL and WIDENER, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his civil action to recover $10,000 which was administratively forfeited as proceeds of drug trafficking. 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. Fisher v. High, No. CA-94-1110-R (W.D.Va. May 28, 1996). 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