Filed: Feb. 24, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2794 DIANE MATCHEM, and Diane Matchem for William Matchem, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MARVIN RUNYON, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, District Judge. (CA-92-56-3-MU) Submitted: February 3, 1998 Decided: February 24, 1998 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circui
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2794 DIANE MATCHEM, and Diane Matchem for William Matchem, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MARVIN RUNYON, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, District Judge. (CA-92-56-3-MU) Submitted: February 3, 1998 Decided: February 24, 1998 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2794 DIANE MATCHEM, and Diane Matchem for William Matchem, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MARVIN RUNYON, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, District Judge. (CA-92-56-3-MU) Submitted: February 3, 1998 Decided: February 24, 1998 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Diane Matchem, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing this action with prejudice for failure to prosecute. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Matchem v. Runyon, No. CA-92-56-3-MU (W.D.N.C. Nov. 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 decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
