Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Penner v. USPS, 95-1715 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-1715 Visitors: 9
Filed: Jan. 16, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-1715 DAVID S. PENNER; JASON W. PENNER, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Paul Trevor Sharp, Magis- trate Judge. (CA-93-489-2) Submitted: November 30, 1995 Decided: January 16, 1996 Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-1715 DAVID S. PENNER; JASON W. PENNER, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Paul Trevor Sharp, Magis- trate Judge. (CA-93-489-2) Submitted: November 30, 1995 Decided: January 16, 1996 Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David S. Penner, Jason W. Penner, Appellants Pro Se. Benjamin H. White, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Gill Paul Beck, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellants appeal from the magistrate judge's order denying relief in a contract dispute with the United States Postal Ser- vice.* We have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. Penner v. United States Postal Service, No. CA-93-489-2 (M.D.N.C. Feb. 21, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate- ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED * The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 636(c) (1988). 2
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