Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Riggan v. R W Moore Equip Co, 98-1521 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-1521 Visitors: 19
Filed: Aug. 31, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1521 VIRGINIA EARLY RIGGAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus R.W. MOORE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-96-890-5-BR2) Submitted: August 13, 1998 Decided: August 31, 1998 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1521 VIRGINIA EARLY RIGGAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus R.W. MOORE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-96-890-5-BR2) Submitted: August 13, 1998 Decided: August 31, 1998 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Virginia Early Riggan, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Hill Garber, BOXLEY, BOLTON & GARBER, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court’s order denying her motion for a new trial or judgment notwithstanding the verdict. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a), 50(b). 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. Riggan v. R.W. Moore Equip. Co., No. CA-96-890-5-BR-2 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 25, 1998). We deny Appellant’s motion for oral argument and preparation of a transcript at government expense because the facts and legal con- tentions 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