Filed: Oct. 25, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1777 EDWARD JUNIOR CLARK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus QUEEN CITY RECOVERY; CARLYLE BRITT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-372-3-MU) Submitted: October 18, 2001 Decided: October 25, 2001 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILT
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1777 EDWARD JUNIOR CLARK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus QUEEN CITY RECOVERY; CARLYLE BRITT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-372-3-MU) Submitted: October 18, 2001 Decided: October 25, 2001 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTO..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1777 EDWARD JUNIOR CLARK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus QUEEN CITY RECOVERY; CARLYLE BRITT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-372-3-MU) Submitted: October 18, 2001 Decided: October 25, 2001 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Edward Junior Clark, Appellant Pro Se. Michael David Bland, WEAVER, BENNETT & BLAND, P.A., Matthews, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Edward Junior Clark appeals the district court’s order dis- missing his civil action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 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. Clark v. Queen City Recovery, No. CA-00- 372-3-MU (W.D.N.C. May 9 & 10, 2001). We dispense with oral argu- ment 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
