Filed: Jan. 27, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-2530 CLARENCE N. FOXWORTH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; JIM ADKINS, Manager, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-97-3096-WMN) Submitted: January 15, 1998 Decided: January 27, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by un
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-2530 CLARENCE N. FOXWORTH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; JIM ADKINS, Manager, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-97-3096-WMN) Submitted: January 15, 1998 Decided: January 27, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unp..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-2530 CLARENCE N. FOXWORTH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; JIM ADKINS, Manager, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-97-3096-WMN) Submitted: January 15, 1998 Decided: January 27, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clarence N. Foxworth, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 civil complaint as frivolous. 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. Foxworth v. New York Life Ins., No. CA-97-3096-WMN (D. Md. Sept. 18, 1997). We dis- pense 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
