Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Turner v. Dept of Social Serv, 97-1306 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-1306 Visitors: 22
Filed: Oct. 08, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1306 LEONARD E. TURNER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES AT VETERANS HOS- PITAL; VIRGINIA LEGAL AID SOCIETY, INCORPO- RATED; COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY; FED- ERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-96-18-4-D) Submitted: September 25, 1997
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1306 LEONARD E. TURNER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES AT VETERANS HOS- PITAL; VIRGINIA LEGAL AID SOCIETY, INCORPO- RATED; COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY; FED- ERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-96-18-4-D) Submitted: September 25, 1997 Decided: October 8, 1997 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leonard E. Turner, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Urban Baer, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia; John Francis Corcoran, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia; John Ernest Falcone, SMITH & FALCONE, Lynchburg, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendants. 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. Turner v. Department of Soc. Servs., No. CA-96-18-4-D (W.D. Va. Feb. 12, 1997). 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 decisional process. AFFIRMED 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