Jenkins v. Baumgardner

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJuly 29, 2005
Docket05-1067
StatusUnpublished

This text of Jenkins v. Baumgardner (Jenkins v. Baumgardner) 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
Jenkins v. Baumgardner, (4th Cir. 2005).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-1067

JOHN A. JENKINS; JULIA JENKINS,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

DONALD R. BAUMGARDNER, individually and his official capacity as Director of the Office of Community Development for Craven County, North Carolina; HAROLD BLIZZARD, individually and in his official capacity as County Manager for Craven County, North Carolina,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-03-53-4-H)

Submitted: June 30, 2005 Decided: July 29, 2005

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Everett Robinson, ROBINSON LAW OFFICE, Rocky Mount, North Carolina, for Appellants. Mark A. Davis, WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

- 2 - PER CURIAM:

John A. Jenkins and Julia D. Jenkins appeal the district

court’s order granting the Appellees’ motion for summary judgment

in their civil action alleging constitutional violations under 42

U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 2000d, in regard to the use and

rehabilitation of their property after flooding. We have reviewed

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on

the reasoning of the district court. See Jenkins v. Baumgardner,

No. CA-03-53-4-H (E.D.N.C. Oct. 20, 2004). We grant the Appellees’

unopposed motion to submit appeal for decision on the briefs and

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 -

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Jenkins v. Baumgardner, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jenkins-v-baumgardner-ca4-2005.