Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Reid v. US Dept Agriculture, 97-1401 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-1401 Visitors: 3
Filed: May 28, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1401 BRENDA L. MCINTYRE; TAMMY M. CARPENTER; DONNA W. JOYNER; LISA MCCALL, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, GEORGE I. REID, Defendant - Appellant, versus MICHAEL ESPY, SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, Defendant - Appellee, and NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Greensboro
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1401 BRENDA L. MCINTYRE; TAMMY M. CARPENTER; DONNA W. JOYNER; LISA MCCALL, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, GEORGE I. REID, Defendant - Appellant, versus MICHAEL ESPY, SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, Defendant - Appellee, and NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Richard C. Erwin, Senior District Judge. (CA-94-184-2) Submitted: May 15, 1997 Decided: May 28, 1997 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George I. Reid, Appellant Pro Se. Gill Paul Beck, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his mo- tion for administration of assets. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accord- ingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Reid v. United States Dep't of Agric., No. CA-94-184-2 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 19, 1997). 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