Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Gent v. VA Intermont College, 98-2076 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-2076 Visitors: 22
Filed: Sep. 23, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2076 JERRY L. GENT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus VIRGINIA INTERMONT COLLEGE, Defendant- Appellee, and ANNE SHUMAKER; REBECCA WATSON, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (CA-97-101-A) Submitted: September 10, 1998 Decided: September 23, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2076 JERRY L. GENT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus VIRGINIA INTERMONT COLLEGE, Defendant- Appellee, and ANNE SHUMAKER; REBECCA WATSON, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (CA-97-101-A) Submitted: September 10, 1998 Decided: September 23, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerry L. Gent, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Bruce Dickert, WARREN & DICKERT, Bristol, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court’s orders reassigning the case to a different judge, granting one Defendant’s motion to dis- miss and the remaining Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissing his complaint. We have reviewed the record and the dis- trict court’s orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Gent v. Virginia Intermont College, No. CA-97-101-A (W.D. Va. July 14, 1997 & Feb. 10 & July 9, 1998). We also deny Appellant’s motion for a ruling concerning service. Appellant’s claims raised on appeal concerning an alleged violation of the Freedom of Information Act and a person not a Defendant in the instant action are not properly before this Court. 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