Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Gant v. Office of US Aty, 03-7381 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-7381 Visitors: 4
Filed: Dec. 22, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7381 ALLAN L. GANT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (CA-02-1145-2) Submitted: December 11, 2003 Decided: December 22, 2003 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Jud
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7381 ALLAN L. GANT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (CA-02-1145-2) Submitted: December 11, 2003 Decided: December 22, 2003 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Allan L. Gant, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Michael Horn, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Allan L. Gant appeals the district court’s order and judgment accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Gant’s civil rights action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Gant v. Office of the United States Attorney, No. CA-02-1145-2 (S.D.W. Va. Aug. 7, 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