Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Gadd v. Rubin, 98-2843 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-2843 Visitors: 47
Filed: Mar. 19, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2843 WILLIAM SANFORD GADD; EDDIE BRADFORD LEE, Plaintiffs - Appellants, and CANAAN PROJECT; CORNERSTONE; D&J TRUST; FLAX TRUST; GEMINI TRUST; GLOBAL FINANCIAL CORPORA- TION; H.F.S. TRUST; HIGHLANDER TRUST; J.E.L. TRUST; RAINBOW ENT TRUST; ROAD TO FREEDOM; SILVER WILL TRUST; TREE TRUST; TRS TRUST, Plaintiffs, versus ROBERT RUBIN, Secretary of the Treasury; LISA GRIGG; MICHAEL C. STENGER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from t
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2843 WILLIAM SANFORD GADD; EDDIE BRADFORD LEE, Plaintiffs - Appellants, and CANAAN PROJECT; CORNERSTONE; D&J TRUST; FLAX TRUST; GEMINI TRUST; GLOBAL FINANCIAL CORPORA- TION; H.F.S. TRUST; HIGHLANDER TRUST; J.E.L. TRUST; RAINBOW ENT TRUST; ROAD TO FREEDOM; SILVER WILL TRUST; TREE TRUST; TRS TRUST, Plaintiffs, versus ROBERT RUBIN, Secretary of the Treasury; LISA GRIGG; MICHAEL C. STENGER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-639-MU) Submitted: March 11, 1999 Decided: March 19, 1999 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Sanford Gadd, Eddie Bradford Lee, Appellants Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: William Sanford Gadd and Eddie Bradford Lee appeal the dis- trict court’s order granting the Defendants’ motion to dismiss their complaint for failure to state a claim and for lack of sub- ject matter jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and the dis- trict court’s opinion and find no reversible error. See Gadd v. Rubin, No. CA-97-639-MU (W.D.N.C. Dec. 9, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate- ly 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