Filed: Apr. 30, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1173 HOWARD J. MCCLURE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THE CITY OF CHARLOTTE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Carl Horn, III, Chief Magistrate Judge. (CA-95-203-3-H) Submitted: April 17, 1997 Decided: April 30, 1997 Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1173 HOWARD J. MCCLURE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THE CITY OF CHARLOTTE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Carl Horn, III, Chief Magistrate Judge. (CA-95-203-3-H) Submitted: April 17, 1997 Decided: April 30, 1997 Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opin..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1173 HOWARD J. MCCLURE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THE CITY OF CHARLOTTE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Carl Horn, III, Chief Magistrate Judge. (CA-95-203-3-H) Submitted: April 17, 1997 Decided: April 30, 1997 Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Howard J. McClure, Appellant Pro Se. Craig A. Reutlinger, VAN HOY, REUTLINGER & TAYLOR, Charlotte, North Carolina; Hope Root, OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the magistrate judge's order granting Defen- dant's motion to dismiss for failure to comply with the magistrate judge's orders. We have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we af- firm on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. McClure v. City of Charlotte, No. CA-95-203-3-H (W.D.N.C. Jan. 23, 1997). We deny Ap- pellant's motion for appointment of counsel and 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 decisional process. AFFIRMED 2