Filed: Dec. 27, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-2264 WILLIAM LEE RICHARDSON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus F AND M BANK, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph Robert Goodwin, District Judge. (CA-01-721-2) Submitted: December 20, 2001 Decided: December 27, 2001 Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Lee Rich
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-2264 WILLIAM LEE RICHARDSON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus F AND M BANK, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph Robert Goodwin, District Judge. (CA-01-721-2) Submitted: December 20, 2001 Decided: December 27, 2001 Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Lee Richa..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-2264 WILLIAM LEE RICHARDSON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus F AND M BANK, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph Robert Goodwin, District Judge. (CA-01-721-2) Submitted: December 20, 2001 Decided: December 27, 2001 Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Lee Richardson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Kathy Santa Barbara, LAYVA, BITTORF & SANTA BARBARA, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: William Lee Richardson, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his civil 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 deny Richardson’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss this appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Richardson v. F and M Bank, No. CA-01-721-2 (S.D.W. Va. Oct. 10, 2001). 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. DISMISSED 2