Filed: Feb. 16, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 01, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1837 DON MCKINNEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DON EARLS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. James P. Jones, Chief District Judge. (CA-03-153-2) Submitted: January 27, 2005 Decided: February 16, 2005 Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Don McKinney, A
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1837 DON MCKINNEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DON EARLS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. James P. Jones, Chief District Judge. (CA-03-153-2) Submitted: January 27, 2005 Decided: February 16, 2005 Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Don McKinney, Ap..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1837 DON MCKINNEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DON EARLS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. James P. Jones, Chief District Judge. (CA-03-153-2) Submitted: January 27, 2005 Decided: February 16, 2005 Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Don McKinney, Appellant Pro Se. Jeffrey Allan Sturgill, STURGILL, MULLINS & KENNEDY, Wise, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Don McKinney appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See McKinney v. Earls, No. CA-03-153-2 (W.D. Va. June 26, 2004). We deny McKinney’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 -
