Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Muhammad v. Hardee's Cross Lanes, 96-1295 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-1295 Visitors: 41
Filed: Sep. 03, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1295 KHADIJAH MUHAMMAD, singly and as next friend to, Plaintiff - Appellant, and ALYSHA S. PERKINS, a minor, Plaintiff, versus GUARDIAN CORPORATION, d/b/a Hardee's of Cross Lanes, West Virginia, the parent company of Hardee's, Defendant - Appellee, and HARDEE'S OF CROSS LANES, WEST VIRGINIA, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver,
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1295 KHADIJAH MUHAMMAD, singly and as next friend to, Plaintiff - Appellant, and ALYSHA S. PERKINS, a minor, Plaintiff, versus GUARDIAN CORPORATION, d/b/a Hardee's of Cross Lanes, West Virginia, the parent company of Hardee's, Defendant - Appellee, and HARDEE'S OF CROSS LANES, WEST VIRGINIA, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (CA-94-890-2) Submitted: August 22, 1996 Decided: September 3, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. 2 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Khadijah Muhammad, Appellant Pro Se. Bryan Rex Cokeley, STEPTOE & JOHNSON, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. 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. Muhammad v. Hardee's Cross Lanes, No. CA-94-890-2 (S.D.W. Va. Jan. 31, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. We deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this court. 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