Cromer v. Kraft Foods, Inc.

Fourth Circuit

Cromer v. Kraft Foods, Inc.

19 F. App'x 147

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedOctober 1, 2001

Docket01-1455

StatusUnpublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 19 F. App'x 147 (Cromer v. Kraft Foods, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cromer v. Kraft Foods, Inc., 19 F. App'x 147 (4th Cir. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Donald Cromer appeals from the magistrate judge’s orders filed on February 28 & March 3, 2001, and entered on March 1 & 13, 2001, denying several motions that were pending in the district court while the case was on appeal and denying Cromer’s motion for reconsideration. * We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and dismiss the appeals as the motions at issue were previously considered or attacked the judgment, which has already been affirmed on appeal. We deny Cromer’s emergency motion to have a single judge to strike the Appellee’s informal brief as untimely. We also deny as moot Cromer’s motion to release a sealed record, as the record was already available to Cromer and the court for review. 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.

DISMISSED.

*

The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Donald Cromer appeals from the magistrate judge’s orders filed on February 28 & March 3, 2001, and entered on March 1 & 13, 2001, denying several motions that were pending in the district court while the case was on appeal and denying Cromer’s motion for reconsideration. * We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and dismiss the appeals as the motions at issue were previously considered or attacked the judgment, which has already been affirmed on appeal. We deny Cromer’s emergency motion to have a single judge to strike the Appellee’s informal brief as untimely. We also deny as moot Cromer’s motion to release a sealed record, as the record was already available to Cromer and the court for review. 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.

DISMISSED.

*

The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 F. App'x 147, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cromer-v-kraft-foods-inc-ca4-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack