Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Sanders v. Carol M. Browner, 97-2629 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-2629 Visitors: 38
Filed: Jun. 09, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-2629 LAUNEIL SANDERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, and LAUNEIL FREEDOM CONSTITUTIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL FOUNDATION, Plaintiff, versus CAROL M. BROWNER, United States Environmental Protection Agency Administrator; ENGELHARD CORPORATION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-97-998-6-20AK) Submitted: May 28, 1998
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-2629 LAUNEIL SANDERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, and LAUNEIL FREEDOM CONSTITUTIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL FOUNDATION, Plaintiff, versus CAROL M. BROWNER, United States Environmental Protection Agency Administrator; ENGELHARD CORPORATION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-97-998-6-20AK) Submitted: May 28, 1998 Decided: June 9, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Launeil Sanders, Appellant Pro Se. Harold Weinberg Jacobs, William Thomas Lavender, Jr., NEXSEN, PRUET, JACOBS & POLLARD, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Launeil Sanders appeals the district court's order dismissing the action below. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Sanders v. Browner, No. CA-97-998- 6-20AK (D.S.C. Nov. 17, 1997). We deny Sanders's motion for ap- pointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials 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