Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
02-1933•Carlton W. Rembert v. GEORGE W. NEAL, Interim Trustee
02-1933Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit04.02.2003
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-1933
CARLTON W. REMBERT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
GEORGE W. NEAL, Interim Trustee; DEBERA F.
CONLON, Assistant Trustee; AMERICAN GENERAL
FINANCE COMPANY; COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-02-264-2)
Submitted: January 30, 2003 Decided: February 4, 2003
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Carlton W. Rembert, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Ray Mayes, WOLCOTT,
RIVERS, WHEARY, BASNIGHT & KELLY, P.C., Virginia Beach, Virginia;
Alex Harry Pincus, Portsmouth, Virginia; George Maralan Kelley,
III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia;
Cecelia Ann Weschler, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRUSTEE, Norfolk,
Virginia; Peter Stevenson Lake, John Andrew Basham, HEILIG,
MCKENRY, FRAIM & LOLLAR, Norfolk, Virginia; Emmanuel Decena Voces,
SAMUEL I. WHITE, P.C., Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellees.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Carlton W. Rembert appeals from the district court’s order
dismissing his action brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown
Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). 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. See Rembert v. Neal, No. CA-02-264-2 (E.D. Va.
July 23, 2002). 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
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.