Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Squirek v. Law Ofc of Sessoms, 03-1746 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-1746 Visitors: 6
Filed: Aug. 20, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1746 THOMAS J. SQUIREK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THE LAW OFFICES OF SESSOMS & ROGERS, P.A.; STUART M. SESSOMS, JR., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CA-02-40-1) Submitted: August 14, 2003 Decided: August 20, 2003 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per c
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1746 THOMAS J. SQUIREK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THE LAW OFFICES OF SESSOMS & ROGERS, P.A.; STUART M. SESSOMS, JR., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CA-02-40-1) Submitted: August 14, 2003 Decided: August 20, 2003 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas J. Squirek, Appellant Pro Se. E. Fitzgerald Parnell, III, Joshua Blake Durham, POYNER & SPRUILL, Charlotte, North Carolina; Stuart M. Sessoms, SESSOMS & ROGERS, P.A., Durham, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Thomas J. Squirek appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint against the Law Offices of Sessoms & Rogers, P.A., and Stuart M. Sessoms, Jr. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Squirek v. Law Offices of Sessoms & Rogers, P.A., No. CA-02-40-1 (M.D.N.C. May 5, 2003). 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