Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Colbert v. Yadkin Valley, 95-3142 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-3142 Visitors: 10
Filed: Sep. 24, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-3142 MILES E. COLBERT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus YADKIN VALLEY TELEPHONE MEMBERSHIP CORPORA- TION; JEFFRIE A. ADAMS; JOSEPH DUANE LONG; WILLIAM R. CROWNFIELD, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. Russell A. Eliason, Magistrate Judge. (CA-95-195-6) Submitted: September 17, 1996 Decided: September 24, 1996 Before HALL and MOTZ,
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-3142 MILES E. COLBERT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus YADKIN VALLEY TELEPHONE MEMBERSHIP CORPORA- TION; JEFFRIE A. ADAMS; JOSEPH DUANE LONG; WILLIAM R. CROWNFIELD, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. Russell A. Eliason, Magistrate Judge. (CA-95-195-6) Submitted: September 17, 1996 Decided: September 24, 1996 Before HALL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Miles E. Colbert, Appellant Pro Se. John Sloane Harrison, Reginald Farrell Combs, BLANCO, TACKABERY, COMBS & MATAMOROS, P.A., Winston- Salem, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the magistrate judge's* order granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment. 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. Colbert v. Yadkin Valley Telephone Membership Corp., No. CA- 95-195-6 (M.D.N.C. Nov. 6, 1995). 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 deci- sional process. AFFIRMED * The parties consented to disposition by a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 636(c) (1994). 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