Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Moffitt v. City of Charlotte, 95-2914 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-2914 Visitors: 28
Filed: Jan. 13, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-2914 CLAUDE F. MOFFITT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CITY OF CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA; TRANSIT MANAGEMENT OF CHARLOTTE; DAVID HINES; REBECCA CHERRY; ROBERT WILLIAMS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, District Judge. (CA-92-438-MU) Submitted: December 17, 1996 Decided: January 13, 1997 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-2914 CLAUDE F. MOFFITT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CITY OF CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA; TRANSIT MANAGEMENT OF CHARLOTTE; DAVID HINES; REBECCA CHERRY; ROBERT WILLIAMS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, District Judge. (CA-92-438-MU) Submitted: December 17, 1996 Decided: January 13, 1997 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Claude F. Moffitt, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Dennis McDonnell, Charlotte, North Carolina, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 Defen- dants' Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a) motion for judgment as a matter of law in this action alleging a violation of 42 U.S.C. ยงยง 1985, 1986 (1994). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opin- ion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the deci- sion of the district court. Moffitt v. City of Charlotte, No. CA- 92-438-MU (W.D.N.C. Sept. 20, 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
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