Filed: Feb. 10, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1772 MARK A. WARD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WAVY BROADCASTING, INCORPORATED; LIN TELEVISION CORPORATION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CA-99-461-2) Submitted: November 26, 2003 Decided: February 10, 2004 Before LUTTIG, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opin
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1772 MARK A. WARD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WAVY BROADCASTING, INCORPORATED; LIN TELEVISION CORPORATION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CA-99-461-2) Submitted: November 26, 2003 Decided: February 10, 2004 Before LUTTIG, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opini..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1772 MARK A. WARD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WAVY BROADCASTING, INCORPORATED; LIN TELEVISION CORPORATION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CA-99-461-2) Submitted: November 26, 2003 Decided: February 10, 2004 Before LUTTIG, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark A. Ward, Appellant Pro Se. William McCardell Furr, WILLCOX & SAVAGE, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Mark A. Ward appeals the district court’s order holding him in civil contempt of its September 30, 2002 pre-filing injunction order. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Ward v. WAVY Broad., Inc., No. CA-99-461-2 (E.D. Va. filed June 17, 2003 & entered June 18, 2003). We deny Ward’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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 -
