Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Haupt v. US Dept Veterans, 98-1982 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-1982 Visitors: 4
Filed: Nov. 18, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1982 JOHN HENRY HAUPT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Secretary Department of Veterans Affairs, Regional Of- fice, Roanoke, VA, Defendant - Appellee, and JAMES MAYE, Director, Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office; STEVE BAST, Human Re- source Office/Department of Veterans Affairs; BILL DIERKER, President, Labor Union; WILLIAM D. HOGAN, Loan Guaranty Officer; DON DENNEHY, Loan Gu
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1982 JOHN HENRY HAUPT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Secretary Department of Veterans Affairs, Regional Of- fice, Roanoke, VA, Defendant - Appellee, and JAMES MAYE, Director, Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office; STEVE BAST, Human Re- source Office/Department of Veterans Affairs; BILL DIERKER, President, Labor Union; WILLIAM D. HOGAN, Loan Guaranty Officer; DON DENNEHY, Loan Guaranty Officer; J. DAVID DOOLEY, Chief, Loan Service and Claims; MICHAEL J. SUTER, Senior Loan Specialist; SUSAN AYERS, Loan Specialist, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-97-802-R) Submitted: November 5, 1998 Decided: November 18, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Henry Haupt, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Paul Crouch, Jr., United States Attorney, John Francis Corcoran, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: John Henry Haupt appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the Appellee. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Haupt v. United States Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, No. CA-97- 802-R (W.D. Va. May 20, 1998; June 5, 1998). We deny Appellant’s motion to amend his notice of appeal, styled as “Motion for Amend- ment of Appeal/Complaint.” We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials 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