Filed: Mar. 28, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1742 JEROME D. MOORE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SOUTHTRUST CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-04-391-2) Submitted: January 31, 2006 Decided: March 28, 2006 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerome D. Moore, Appellant Pro Se
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1742 JEROME D. MOORE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SOUTHTRUST CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-04-391-2) Submitted: January 31, 2006 Decided: March 28, 2006 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerome D. Moore, Appellant Pro Se...
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1742 JEROME D. MOORE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SOUTHTRUST CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-04-391-2) Submitted: January 31, 2006 Decided: March 28, 2006 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerome D. Moore, Appellant Pro Se. William McCardell Furr, John T. McDonald, WILLCOX & SAVAGE, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Jerome D. Moore appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment for SouthTrust Corporation and dismissing his claims of breach of contract and violations of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1693 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Moore v. SouthTrust Corp., No. CA-04-391-2-JBF (E.D. Va. June 10, 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 - 2 -
