Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Dempster v. Cash, 95-3003 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-3003 Visitors: 15
Filed: Jan. 31, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-3003 RICHARD DEMPSTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GARY CASH; REBECCA KNIGHT, Honorable; EARL J. FOWLER, Honorable; BUNCOMBE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, through and by its Child Support Enforcement Agency; CHERI WOOD; SUSAN WILSON; JIM SAIN; INVESTIGATOR #1; INVESTIGATOR #2; RACHAEL STEIN; MARK T. CALLOWAY; CAROL SALIBA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North C
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-3003 RICHARD DEMPSTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GARY CASH; REBECCA KNIGHT, Honorable; EARL J. FOWLER, Honorable; BUNCOMBE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, through and by its Child Support Enforcement Agency; CHERI WOOD; SUSAN WILSON; JIM SAIN; INVESTIGATOR #1; INVESTIGATOR #2; RACHAEL STEIN; MARK T. CALLOWAY; CAROL SALIBA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (CA-95-210-1-T) 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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard Dempster, Appellant Pro Se. Virginia Anne Gibbons, Assis- tant Attorney General, Thaddeus Byron Smith, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina; Stanford Kent Clontz, COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). 2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1988) complaint and denying his request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunc- tion. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the rea- soning of the district court. Dempster v. Cash, No. CA-95-210-1-T (W.D.N.C. Nov. 3, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
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