Filed: Mar. 29, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-1693 WILLIAM DENNIS HUBER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LIBERTY UNIVERSITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Jackson L. Kiser, Chief District Judge. (CA-94-77-L) Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: March 29, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-1693 WILLIAM DENNIS HUBER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LIBERTY UNIVERSITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Jackson L. Kiser, Chief District Judge. (CA-94-77-L) Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: March 29, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wil..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-1693 WILLIAM DENNIS HUBER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LIBERTY UNIVERSITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Jackson L. Kiser, Chief District Judge. (CA-94-77-L) Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: March 29, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Dennis Huber, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Eastwood Glenn, Phillip Richard Lingafelt, GLENN, FLIPPIN, FELDMANN & DARBY, Roanoke, Virginia, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 state law fraud action as barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 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. Huber v. Liberty Univ., No. CA-94- 77-L (W.D. Va. Feb. 17, 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 deci- sional process. AFFIRMED 2
