Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

95-1837 (1995)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-1837 Visitors: 9
Filed: Aug. 10, 1995
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 62 F.3d 1415 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Charles T. SHERWIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; Donald L. Robinson, Defendants-Appellees, and STATE of North Carolina, Defendant. Charles T. SHERWIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; Geo
More

62 F.3d 1415

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Charles T. SHERWIN, Plaintiff--Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America; Donald L. Robinson, Defendants--Appellees,
and
STATE of North Carolina, Defendant.
Charles T. SHERWIN, Plaintiff--Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America; George H.W. Bush, President,
United States of America; Donald B. Rice, Secretary, United
States Air Force; Constance Newman, Director, Office of
Personnel Management; Daniel R. Levinson, Chairman, U.S.
Merit Systems Protection Board, Defendants--Appellees.

Nos. 95-1837, 95-1895.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Aug. 10, 1995.
Submitted: July 25, 1995
Decided: August 10, 1995

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Fayetteville. W. Earl Britt, Malcolm J. Howard, District Judges.

E.D.N.C.

AFFIRMED.

Charles T. Sherwin, Appellant Pro Se.

Charles Edwin Hamilton, III, Eileen Coffey Moore, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

In these consolidated appeals, Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying Appellant's motion for leave of court to file motions on his previous cases in the district court. 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. Sherwin v. United States, Nos. CA-94-48-3-BR; CA-92-56-3-H (E.D.N.C. Mar. 20, 1995 & Mar. 15, 1995). 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