Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

McCall v. United States, 96-2238 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-2238 Visitors: 29
Filed: Oct. 08, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2238 MYRON A. MCCALL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; BERNIE L. WRIGHT; LAURIE C. LAWSON; JAMES L. ROGERS; DIGGS O. HILL; ROBERT BLACKWELL; LARRY DURHAM; SUSAN BISHOP; DAN GLICKMAN, Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture; GRANT BUNTROCK, Administrator of the Consolidated Farm Service Agency, Defendants - Appellees, and FARM SERVICE AGENCY; NATIONAL APPEALS DIVISION, Defendants. Appe
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2238 MYRON A. MCCALL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; BERNIE L. WRIGHT; LAURIE C. LAWSON; JAMES L. ROGERS; DIGGS O. HILL; ROBERT BLACKWELL; LARRY DURHAM; SUSAN BISHOP; DAN GLICKMAN, Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture; GRANT BUNTROCK, Administrator of the Consolidated Farm Service Agency, Defendants - Appellees, and FARM SERVICE AGENCY; NATIONAL APPEALS DIVISION, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-96-62-8-20-AK) Submitted: September 25, 1997 Decided: October 8, 1997 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Myron A. McCall, Appellant Pro Se. James D. McCoy III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 orders (1) adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss his complaint alleging numerous claims arising from the denial of his application for a loan through the Farm Service Agency and (2) denying his motion for reconsideration, Fed. R. Civ. P. 59. Our review of the record and the district court's orders discloses no reversible error. Accord- ingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. McCall v. United States, No. CA-96-62-8-20-AK (D.S.C. Aug. 5, 1996). We dis- pense 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