Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Lambert v. Webb, 01-2358 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-2358 Visitors: 41
Filed: May 20, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-2358 ANTHONY LAMBERT, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus EDWARD E. WEBB, individually and in his official capacity as Sheriff of Gates County, North Carolina; KEVIN L. BYRD, individually and in his official capacity as Sergeant of Gates County, North Carolina; GATES COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA; GATES COUNTY DEFENDANTS, Defendants - Appellees, and FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND; E. W. Jones, individually, Defendants. Ap
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-2358 ANTHONY LAMBERT, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus EDWARD E. WEBB, individually and in his official capacity as Sheriff of Gates County, North Carolina; KEVIN L. BYRD, individually and in his official capacity as Sergeant of Gates County, North Carolina; GATES COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA; GATES COUNTY DEFENDANTS, Defendants - Appellees, and FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND; E. W. Jones, individually, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-60-2-BO) Submitted: April 24, 2002 Decided: May 20, 2002 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Lambert, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Mark Allen Davis, Tamara Paragino Williams Desai, WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Anthony Lambert, Sr., appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion to remand the action to state court and dismissing the action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b), 41(b). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Lambert v. Webb, No. CA-00-60-2-BO (E.D.N.C. Feb. 13, 2001; Sept. 21, 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. 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