Filed: Feb. 17, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2139 DANIEL BREEDEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DUKE UNIVERSITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-96-1075-1) Submitted: January 29, 1999 Decided: February 17, 1999 Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2139 DANIEL BREEDEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DUKE UNIVERSITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-96-1075-1) Submitted: January 29, 1999 Decided: February 17, 1999 Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-2139
DANIEL BREEDEN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
DUKE UNIVERSITY,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (CA-96-1075-1)
Submitted: January 29, 1999 Decided: February 17, 1999
Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Cir-
cuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Daniel Breeden, Appellant Pro Se. John Morgan Simpson, FULBRIGHT
& JAWORSKI, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Daniel Breeden appeals the district court’s order granting
Duke University’s motion to confirm the arbitrator’s award.
Breeden did not oppose the motion to confirm in the district court,
thus none of the issues raised by Breeden in his informal brief
were presented below. Claims not raised in the district court
generally will not be considered on appeal. See Muth v. United
States,
1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we affirm
the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma-
terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
2