Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Wellman v. Appalachian Research, 01-1025 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-1025 Visitors: 11
Filed: May 22, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1025 LARRY WELLMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, and JERRIE LYNN WELLMAN, and on behalf of her brother; LARRY WELLMAN, JR., Plaintiffs, versus APPALACHIAN RESEARCH & DEFENSE FUND, INCOR- PORATED, a/k/a Applered Legal Aid Services; WEST VIRGINIA LEGAL SERVICES, INCORPORATED; WEST VIRGINIA STATE BAR, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Charleston. Cha
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1025 LARRY WELLMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, and JERRIE LYNN WELLMAN, and on behalf of her brother; LARRY WELLMAN, JR., Plaintiffs, versus APPALACHIAN RESEARCH & DEFENSE FUND, INCOR- PORATED, a/k/a Applered Legal Aid Services; WEST VIRGINIA LEGAL SERVICES, INCORPORATED; WEST VIRGINIA STATE BAR, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-222-2) Submitted: May 17, 2001 Decided: May 22, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry Wellman, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas V. Flaherty, Scott H. Kaminski, FLAHERTY, SENSABAUGH & BONASSO, P.L.L.C., Charleston, West Virginia; James Patrick Martin, WEST VIRGINIA LEGAL SERVICES PLAN, INCORPORATED, Charleston, West Virginia; David James Mincer, BAILEY & WYANT, P.L.L.C., Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Larry Wellman appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Wellman v. Appalachian Research & Defense Fund, Inc., No. CA-00- 222-2 (S.D.W. Va. Dec. 12, 2000). 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
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