Filed: Apr. 06, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-2759 LAWRENCE VERLINE WILDER, SR. Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MARVIN RUNYON, Postmaster General, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA- 97-4056-S) Submitted: March 26, 1998 Decided: April 6, 1998 Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opin
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-2759 LAWRENCE VERLINE WILDER, SR. Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MARVIN RUNYON, Postmaster General, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA- 97-4056-S) Submitted: March 26, 1998 Decided: April 6, 1998 Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opini..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-2759 LAWRENCE VERLINE WILDER, SR. Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MARVIN RUNYON, Postmaster General, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA- 97-4056-S) Submitted: March 26, 1998 Decided: April 6, 1998 Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lawrence Verline Wilder, Sr., 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 without prejudice Appellant's breach of contract claim. 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. Wilder v. Runyon, No. CA-97-4056-S (D. Md. Dec. 11, 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
