Filed: Feb. 15, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-2617 DUREMEA ANN BUGGS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LARRY ALEXANDER BUGGS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (MISC-95-77-5-BR) Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: February 15, 1996 Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-2617 DUREMEA ANN BUGGS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LARRY ALEXANDER BUGGS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (MISC-95-77-5-BR) Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: February 15, 1996 Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. D..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-2617 DUREMEA ANN BUGGS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LARRY ALEXANDER BUGGS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (MISC-95-77-5-BR) Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: February 15, 1996 Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Duremea Ann Buggs, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 orders dismissing her complaint for child support and alimony and denying reconsid- eration. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no abuse of discretion and no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Buggs v. Buggs, No. MISC-95-77-5-BR (E.D.N.C. July 31, 1995; Aug. 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 decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
