Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Buggs v. United States, 95-3214 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-3214 Visitors: 11
Filed: May 28, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-3214 DUREMEA ANN BUGGS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; THE AMERICAN RED CROSS; SAINT ELIZABETH'S HOSPITAL; GWENDOLYN L. BUGGS; DEBORAH E. ROBERTSON; JAMES LOVETT; ANNE B. SALISBURY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (CA-95-766-5-BR) Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: May 28, 1996
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-3214 DUREMEA ANN BUGGS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; THE AMERICAN RED CROSS; SAINT ELIZABETH'S HOSPITAL; GWENDOLYN L. BUGGS; DEBORAH E. ROBERTSON; JAMES LOVETT; ANNE B. SALISBURY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (CA-95-766-5-BR) Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: May 28, 1996 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Duremea Ann Buggs, Appellant Pro Se. Phillip J. Anthony, PATTER- SON, DILTHEY, CLAY & BRYSON, Raleigh, North Carolina; Virginia Anne Gibbons, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 orders dismissing her civil complaint as frivolous, denying her motion for reconsid- eration, and denying her motion to vacate. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and find no abuse of discretion and no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Buggs v. United States, No. CA-95- 766-5-BR (E.D.N.C. Oct. 18, 1995; Nov. 7, 1995; and Dec. 26, 1995). We also deny Appellant's motions for correction of the record on appeal. 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