Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Craig v. Gardner, 03-2507 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-2507 Visitors: 7
Filed: Mar. 30, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2507 EDWARD P. CRAIG, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PAMELA J. GARDNER, Acting Treasury Inspector General for Tax Affairs (TIGTA), Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-03-912-A) Submitted: March 25, 2004 Decided: March 30, 2004 Before TRAXLER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublishe
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2507 EDWARD P. CRAIG, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PAMELA J. GARDNER, Acting Treasury Inspector General for Tax Affairs (TIGTA), Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-03-912-A) Submitted: March 25, 2004 Decided: March 30, 2004 Before TRAXLER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edward P. Craig, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Karen Deborah Utiger, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Edward P. Craig, Jr., appeals from the district court’s order denying his petition for writ of mandamus in which he sought an order from the district court directing the Acting Treasury Inspector General for Tax Affairs to investigate his allegations of wrongdoing by the Atlanta Service Center. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Craig v. Gardner, No. CA-03-912-A (E.D. Va. filed Nov. 14, 2003; entered Nov. 17, 2003). We deny Craig’s motion opposing a change of venue and his motion to take a deposition. 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