Filed: Nov. 19, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6847 WILLIAM F. JOHNSON; BRIAN S. MARTIN, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus RONALD ANGELONE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-96-151-AM) Submitted: November 7, 1996 Decided: November 19, 1996 Before RUSSELL and WIDENER, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6847 WILLIAM F. JOHNSON; BRIAN S. MARTIN, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus RONALD ANGELONE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-96-151-AM) Submitted: November 7, 1996 Decided: November 19, 1996 Before RUSSELL and WIDENER, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per c..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6847 WILLIAM F. JOHNSON; BRIAN S. MARTIN, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus RONALD ANGELONE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-96-151-AM) Submitted: November 7, 1996 Decided: November 19, 1996 Before RUSSELL and WIDENER, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William F. Johnson, Brian S. Martin, Appellants Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellants appeal the district court's order dismissing with- out prejudice their motion for a temporary restraining order. 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. Johnson v. Angelone, No. CA-96-151-AM (E.D. Va. May 28, 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 decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
