McDOWELL v. BAYLEY

16 F.3d 410
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 2, 1994
Docket9301515
StatusPublished

This text of 16 F.3d 410 (McDOWELL v. BAYLEY) 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
McDOWELL v. BAYLEY, 16 F.3d 410 (4th Cir. 1994).

Opinion

16 F.3d 410
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.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 E. McDOWELL, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
William BAYLEY; Deborah Dalton; Dianne Sortini;
Chancellor of North Carolina State University; Virginia
Aldridge; Bruce MacDonald; North Carolina State
University; Drake Maynard, Administrator of the State
Personnel Commission; Tammy Austin, Investigator, Office of
Administrative Hearings, Civil Rights Division; Does 1-10,
Defendants-Appellees.

No. 9301515.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 20, 1994.
Decided Feb. 2, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Franklin T. Dupree, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-92-98-5-D)

James E. McDowell, appellant pro se.

Thomas J. Ziko, Office of the Attorney General of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC, for appellees.

E.D.N.C.

AFFIRMED.

Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing this action with prejudice for failure to comply with a court order to comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 8. 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. McDowell v. Bayley, No. CA-92-98-5-D (E.D.N.C. Mar. 25, 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.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
16 F.3d 410, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcdowell-v-bayley-ca4-1994.