Filed: Jan. 31, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-1376 ARTHUR CARSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NATIONAL CERTIFYING ORGANIZATION FOR PARA- LEGALS; CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS; PATRICK L. TEAGUE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-94-2263-WN) Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: January 31, 1996 Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CH
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-1376 ARTHUR CARSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NATIONAL CERTIFYING ORGANIZATION FOR PARA- LEGALS; CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS; PATRICK L. TEAGUE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-94-2263-WN) Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: January 31, 1996 Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHA..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-1376 ARTHUR CARSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NATIONAL CERTIFYING ORGANIZATION FOR PARA- LEGALS; CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS; PATRICK L. TEAGUE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-94-2263-WN) Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: January 31, 1996 Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Arthur Carson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his civil complaint. 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. Carson v. National Certifying Organization for Paralegals, No. CA-94-2263-WN (D. Md. Feb. 27, 1995). 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
