Filed: Feb. 27, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1472 DONALD W. WOLFORD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PARDEE & CURTAIN LUMBER COMPANY; B. V. WHITE; R. V. WHITE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert Earl Maxwell, Senior District Judge. (CA-95-114-2) Submitted: February 11, 1997 Decided: February 27, 1997 Before HALL and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1472 DONALD W. WOLFORD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PARDEE & CURTAIN LUMBER COMPANY; B. V. WHITE; R. V. WHITE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert Earl Maxwell, Senior District Judge. (CA-95-114-2) Submitted: February 11, 1997 Decided: February 27, 1997 Before HALL and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. A..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1472 DONALD W. WOLFORD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PARDEE & CURTAIN LUMBER COMPANY; B. V. WHITE; R. V. WHITE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert Earl Maxwell, Senior District Judge. (CA-95-114-2) Submitted: February 11, 1997 Decided: February 27, 1997 Before HALL and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donald W. Wolford, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his action seeking review of a state court order. 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. Wolford v. Pardee & Curtain Lumber Co., No. CA-95-114-2 (N.D.W. Va. Apr. 22, 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. AFFIRMED 2
