Young v. Pfizer Labs, Inc.

Fourth Circuit

Young v. Pfizer Labs, Inc.

72 F.3d 128, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 39600, 1995 WL 739370

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedDecember 14, 1995

Docket95-2019

StatusPublished

This text of 72 F.3d 128 (Young v. Pfizer Labs, 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

Young v. Pfizer Labs, Inc., 72 F.3d 128, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 39600, 1995 WL 739370 (4th Cir. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

72 F.3d 128
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Jerry R. YOUNG, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
PFIZER LABS, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee,
and
REVCO DISCOUNT DRUG CENTERS, INCORPORATED; Becki Mitchell;
Lee C. Currin, Doctor; Medical Economics Data
Production Company, Defendants.

No. 95-2019.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 14, 1995.
Decided Dec. 14, 1995.

Jerry R. Young, Appellant Pro Se. William Louis Young, SMITH, HELMS, MULLISS & MOORE, L.L.P., Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order granting summary judgment to the Appellee in this products liability action. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Young v. Pfizer Labs, Inc., No. CA-94-459-5-BO (E.D.N.C. May 15, 1995). We deny Appellant's motion for sanctions. 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

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

72 F.3d 128
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Jerry R. YOUNG, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
PFIZER LABS, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee,
and
REVCO DISCOUNT DRUG CENTERS, INCORPORATED; Becki Mitchell;
Lee C. Currin, Doctor; Medical Economics Data
Production Company, Defendants.

No. 95-2019.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 14, 1995.
Decided Dec. 14, 1995.

Jerry R. Young, Appellant Pro Se. William Louis Young, SMITH, HELMS, MULLISS & MOORE, L.L.P., Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order granting summary judgment to the Appellee in this products liability action. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Young v. Pfizer Labs, Inc., No. CA-94-459-5-BO (E.D.N.C. May 15, 1995). We deny Appellant's motion for sanctions. 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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 F.3d 128, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 39600, 1995 WL 739370, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/young-v-pfizer-labs-inc-ca4-1995.