James Henry Cole v. Baron Dixon Wal-Mart Department Store

Fourth Circuit

James Henry Cole v. Baron Dixon Wal-Mart Department Store

21 F.3d 421, 1994 WL 112760

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedApril 4, 1994

Docket94-1065

StatusPublished

This text of 21 F.3d 421 (James Henry Cole v. Baron Dixon Wal-Mart Department Store) 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

James Henry Cole v. Baron Dixon Wal-Mart Department Store, 21 F.3d 421, 1994 WL 112760 (4th Cir. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

21 F.3d 421
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

James Henry COLE, Plaintiff Appellant,
v.
Baron DIXON; Wal-Mart Department Store, Defendants Appellees.

No. 94-1065.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 17, 1994.
Decided April 4, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert E. Pane, District Judge. (CA-93-862)

James Henry Cole, appellant pro se.

James Clayton Lewis, John Mark Cooper, Croshaw, Siegel, Beale, Hauser & Lewis, Virginia Beach, VA, for appellees.

E.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before PHILLIPS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988) complaint. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.* Cole v. Dixon, No. CA-93-862 (E.D. Va. Dec. 7, 1993). 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

*

We deny Appellant's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, and we dismiss as moot Appellee's Motion to Dismiss

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

21 F.3d 421
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

James Henry COLE, Plaintiff Appellant,
v.
Baron DIXON; Wal-Mart Department Store, Defendants Appellees.

No. 94-1065.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 17, 1994.
Decided April 4, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert E. Pane, District Judge. (CA-93-862)

James Henry Cole, appellant pro se.

James Clayton Lewis, John Mark Cooper, Croshaw, Siegel, Beale, Hauser & Lewis, Virginia Beach, VA, for appellees.

E.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before PHILLIPS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988) complaint. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.* Cole v. Dixon, No. CA-93-862 (E.D. Va. Dec. 7, 1993). 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

*

We deny Appellant's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, and we dismiss as moot Appellee's Motion to Dismiss

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 F.3d 421, 1994 WL 112760, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-henry-cole-v-baron-dixon-wal-mart-department-ca4-1994.