Filed: Jul. 24, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1111 WILLIAM M. LEWIS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CAPITAL ONE BANK; NATIONSBANK, N.A., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-97-560) Submitted: May 19, 1998 Decided: July 24, 1998 Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William M. Lewis, Jr., A
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1111 WILLIAM M. LEWIS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CAPITAL ONE BANK; NATIONSBANK, N.A., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-97-560) Submitted: May 19, 1998 Decided: July 24, 1998 Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William M. Lewis, Jr., Ap..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1111 WILLIAM M. LEWIS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CAPITAL ONE BANK; NATIONSBANK, N.A., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-97-560) Submitted: May 19, 1998 Decided: July 24, 1998 Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William M. Lewis, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Frank Grey LaPrade, III, CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, Glen Allen, Virginia; Stephen Atherton Northup, MAYS & VALENTINE, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court’s order granting Defen- dants’ motions to dismiss his action alleging violations of his constitutional rights. 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. Lewis v. Capital One Bank, No. CA-97-560 (E.D. Va. Jan. 13 & Feb. 10, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade- quately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2