The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
00-1152•Kenneth Lee Crow v. Jane R. Blalock
00-1152Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitMay 2, 2000
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-1152
KENNETH LEE CROW,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JANE R. BLALOCK,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
WEST VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (CA-99-109-5)
Submitted: April 27, 2000 Decided: May 2, 2000
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Cir-
cuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kenneth Lee Crow, Appellant Pro Se. David Wayne Hummel, Jr.,
STEPTOE & JOHNSON, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth Lee Crow appeals the district court’s order dismissing
his suit for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. 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 Crow v. Blalock, No. CA-
99-109-5 (N.D.W. Va. Jan. 7, 2000). Furthermore, we deny Appel-
lee’s motion to dismiss as moot. Finally, we deny Appellant’s mo-
tion for injunctive relief. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma-
terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.