Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Houston v. Siecor Corporation, 95-2035 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-2035 Visitors: 7
Filed: Jan. 31, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-2035 KEN E. HOUSTON; CHARLES M. SIGMON; DEBRA H. HEFNER; HARRY WALLACE, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus SIECOR CORPORATION; DON SIGMON; DOUGLAS MILLER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen, District Judge. (CA-94-64-5-MU) Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: January 31, 1996 Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-2035 KEN E. HOUSTON; CHARLES M. SIGMON; DEBRA H. HEFNER; HARRY WALLACE, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus SIECOR CORPORATION; DON SIGMON; DOUGLAS MILLER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen, District Judge. (CA-94-64-5-MU) Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: January 31, 1996 Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ken E. Houston, Charles M. Sigmon, Debra H. Hefner, Harry Wallace, Appellants Pro Se. J. David Abernethy, SIECOR CORPORATION, Hick- ory, North Carolina; George North Boylan, Special Deputy Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying re- lief on his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Houston v. Siecor Corp., No. CA-94-64-5-MU (W.D.N.C. Apr. 20, 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 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