Filed: Apr. 16, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 94-2450 ALBERT CHARLES BURGESS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THOMAS J. ANDREWS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior District Judge. (CA-86-503-C-C-P) Submitted: March 26, 1996 Decided: April 16, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per c
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 94-2450 ALBERT CHARLES BURGESS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THOMAS J. ANDREWS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior District Judge. (CA-86-503-C-C-P) Submitted: March 26, 1996 Decided: April 16, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per cu..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 94-2450 ALBERT CHARLES BURGESS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THOMAS J. ANDREWS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior District Judge. (CA-86-503-C-C-P) Submitted: March 26, 1996 Decided: April 16, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Albert Charles Burgess, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Richard Cartwright Carmichael, Jr., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing his civil action for failure to prosecute under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and find no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Burgess v. Andrews, No. CA-86-503-C-C-P (W.D.N.C. Sept. 21, 1994; Oct. 7, 1994). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2