Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Thomas v. Brown, 05-1195 (2005)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 05-1195 Visitors: 6
Filed: Nov. 22, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1195 JANIE THOMAS, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RUSSELL BROWN, Defendant - Appellant. No. 05-1417 JANIE THOMAS, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RUSSELL BROWN, Defendant - Appellant. No. 05-1439 JANIE THOMAS, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RUSSELL BROWN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-03-3846-2-23-P
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1195 JANIE THOMAS, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RUSSELL BROWN, Defendant - Appellant. No. 05-1417 JANIE THOMAS, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RUSSELL BROWN, Defendant - Appellant. No. 05-1439 JANIE THOMAS, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RUSSELL BROWN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-03-3846-2-23-PMD) Submitted: October 26, 2005 Decided: November 22, 2005 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Russell Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Fleet Freeman, FREEMAN & FREEMAN, Mount Pleasant, South Carolina; Richard Allan Hricik, THE LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD A. HRICIK, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Russell Brown appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment to plaintiff, and the district court’s subsequent orders entering judgment on the jury’s verdict on damages, granting plaintiff’s motions to strike his interlocutory notices of appeal, and denying his motion and amended motion for stay of execution of the judgment. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Thomas v. Brown, No. CA-03-3846-2-23-PMD (D.S.C. Mar. 4, 11 & 15, 2005; Apr. 6, 2005). 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 - 3 -
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