Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Langdon v. Malone, 03-2493 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-2493 Visitors: 56
Filed: Jun. 02, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2493 CHRISTOPHER LANGDON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus T. L. MALONE; JERRY BREWER; ED GREEN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-189-5-BO) Submitted: May 27, 2004 Decided: June 2, 2004 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christoph
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2493 CHRISTOPHER LANGDON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus T. L. MALONE; JERRY BREWER; ED GREEN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-189-5-BO) Submitted: May 27, 2004 Decided: June 2, 2004 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher Langdon, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Orr Crawford, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Lisa Carol Glover, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Christopher Langdon appeals from the district court’s order denying his post-judgment motions to compel discovery and to recuse. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Langdon v. Malone, No. CA-02-189-5-BO (E.D.N.C. Oct. 21, 2003). We deny Appellees’ motion for sanctions. We deny Langdon’s motion to consolidate, motion to extend time to file a response to Appellees’ motion for sanctions, and motion to strike Appellees’ motion for sanctions. We also deny Langdon’s motion for 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