Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Lehnhardt v. Starkey, 95-2345 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-2345 Visitors: 20
Filed: Feb. 01, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-2345 NORMAN E. LEHNHARDT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus J. R. STARKEY, in his individual capacity; RICHARD MARSH, in his individual capacity; C. R. MOBLEY, in his individual capacity; GAIL J. ROBERSON, in her individual capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Richard C. Erwin, Senior District Judge. (CA-94-453-2) Submitted: Ja
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-2345 NORMAN E. LEHNHARDT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus J. R. STARKEY, in his individual capacity; RICHARD MARSH, in his individual capacity; C. R. MOBLEY, in his individual capacity; GAIL J. ROBERSON, in her individual capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Richard C. Erwin, Senior District Judge. (CA-94-453-2) Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: February 1, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Norman E. Lehnhardt, Appellant Pro Se. Gary R. Allen, Charles Edward Brookhart, Richard Farber, Thomas Vincent Linguanti, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Lehnhardt v. Starkey, No. CA-94-453-2 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 27, 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 2
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