Filed: Dec. 03, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1508 DR. ALLAN L. GANT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus U.S. DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY; DOM GRANT, DEA Agent; SHERRIE LANHAM, DEA Agent; R. M. YOUNG, DEA Agent, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-982-2) Submitted: November 21, 1996 Decided: December 3, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HA
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1508 DR. ALLAN L. GANT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus U.S. DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY; DOM GRANT, DEA Agent; SHERRIE LANHAM, DEA Agent; R. M. YOUNG, DEA Agent, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-982-2) Submitted: November 21, 1996 Decided: December 3, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAM..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1508 DR. ALLAN L. GANT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus U.S. DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY; DOM GRANT, DEA Agent; SHERRIE LANHAM, DEA Agent; R. M. YOUNG, DEA Agent, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-982-2) Submitted: November 21, 1996 Decided: December 3, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Allan L. Gant, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Michael Horn, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment for the Defendants in Grant's civil rights action. 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. Gant v. U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, No. CA-95- 982-2 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 22, 1996). 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 deci- sional process. AFFIRMED 2