Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Harold Pittman v. Rebecca E. Stallings Glenn S. Dixon, of the Estate of Glenn W. Dixon, Jr. Dixon Lumber Company, Incorporated, 92-2564 (1993)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 92-2564 Visitors: 28
Filed: Nov. 04, 1993
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 8 F.3d 819 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Harold PITTMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Rebecca E. STALLINGS; Glenn S. Dixon, Executor of the Estate of Glenn W. Dixon, Jr.; Dixon Lumber Company, Incorporated, Defendants-Appellees. No. 92-2564. United States Court of Appeals, Four
More

8 F.3d 819

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Harold PITTMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Rebecca E. STALLINGS; Glenn S. Dixon, Executor of the
Estate of Glenn W. Dixon, Jr.; Dixon Lumber
Company, Incorporated, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 92-2564.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 29, 1993.
Decided: November 4, 1993.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon.

Rubin Thayer Rivers, Jr., for Appellant.

Rebecca E. Stallings, Appellee Pro Se; Stephen McQuiston Hodges, PENN, STUART, ESKRIDGE & JONES, for Appellees.

Before PHILLIPS, WILKINS, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

OPINION

1

Harold Pittman appeals from the district court's order granting judgment to Defendants as a matter of law. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Pittman v. Stallings, No. CA-91-57-A (W.D. Va. Nov. 10, 1992). We deny Pittman's motion to submit formal brief and for oral argument, and 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

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