Filed: Apr. 22, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-2597 CLIFTON B. TOMLIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHESAPEAKE BAY FISHING COMPANY, L.C., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-94-790) Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: April 22, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-2597 CLIFTON B. TOMLIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHESAPEAKE BAY FISHING COMPANY, L.C., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-94-790) Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: April 22, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curia..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-2597 CLIFTON B. TOMLIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHESAPEAKE BAY FISHING COMPANY, L.C., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-94-790) Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: April 22, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clifton B. Tomlin, Appellant Pro Se. Edward James Powers, VANDEVENTER, BLACK, MEREDITH & MARTIN, Norfolk, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 entering judgment in accordance with the jury's verdict in a civil action, wherein the Appellant asserted that he suffered a job-related injury as a result of the Appellee's negligence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. 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
