Filed: Sep. 04, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1834 ALAN O’DONNELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COLIN POWELL, General, Secretary of State, U.S. State Department, et al., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (CA-02-143-1-T) Submitted: August 26, 2002 Decided: September 4, 2002 Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublish
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1834 ALAN O’DONNELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COLIN POWELL, General, Secretary of State, U.S. State Department, et al., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (CA-02-143-1-T) Submitted: August 26, 2002 Decided: September 4, 2002 Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublishe..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1834 ALAN O’DONNELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COLIN POWELL, General, Secretary of State, U.S. State Department, et al., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (CA-02-143-1-T) Submitted: August 26, 2002 Decided: September 4, 2002 Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alan O’Donnell, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Alan O’Donnell appeals the district court’s order dismissing his action against the Secretary of State. 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. O’Donnell v. Powell, No. CA-02-143-1-T (W.D.N.C. filed July 2, 2002 & entered July 8, 2002). 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
