Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Duquesne v. Fidelity Bank, 95-2092 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-2092 Visitors: 21
Filed: Jan. 23, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-2092 EUGENIO DUQUESNE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THE FIDELITY BANK; JIM TURNER, Bank Official; REE GARDNER, Bank Official; KELLY G. HALLMAN, Bank Official; LOUIS C. ROSSER, Sheriff; SOCIAL SERVICES, Harnett County; ELIZABETH MURCHISON, Harnett County Social Services; MARY ANN STUMP, Agent, Harnett County Social Services; RHONDA H. ENNIS, Agent, Harnett County Social Services; JACK D. BRYAN, Agent, Harnett County Social
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-2092 EUGENIO DUQUESNE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THE FIDELITY BANK; JIM TURNER, Bank Official; REE GARDNER, Bank Official; KELLY G. HALLMAN, Bank Official; LOUIS C. ROSSER, Sheriff; SOCIAL SERVICES, Harnett County; ELIZABETH MURCHISON, Harnett County Social Services; MARY ANN STUMP, Agent, Harnett County Social Services; RHONDA H. ENNIS, Agent, Harnett County Social Services; JACK D. BRYAN, Agent, Harnett County Social Services; JACK D. BUZZARD, Attorney, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (CA-95-8-5-BR) Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 23, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eugenio Duquesne, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). 2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1988) complaint and denying his motion for reconsideration. 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. Duquesne v. Fidelity Bank, No. CA-95-8-5-BR (E.D.N.C. Mar. 9, 1995; May 2, 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 3
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