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)
00-1848•Michael Craig Clark v. CONOCO, INCORPORATED, at 1321 Tunnel Road, Asheville, North Carolina
00-1848Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitSep 6, 2000
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-1848
MICHAEL CRAIG CLARK,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
CONOCO, INCORPORATED, at 1321 Tunnel Road,
Asheville, North Carolina; CONOCO, INCORPO-
RATED, at 1705 Patton Avenue, Asheville, North
Carolina; BASILICA OF ST. LAWRENCE DM; AARON
BAPTIST CHURCH; ABERNETHY UNITED METHODIST;
ABIDING SAVIOUR LUTHERAN CHURCH; ABUNDANT LIFE
ASSEMBLY; ALL SAINTS ANGLICAN CHURCH; ALLENS
CREEK BAPTIST CHURCH; ANTIOCH CHURCH; ARDEN
CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE; ARDEN FIRST BAPTIST
CHURCH; ARDEN MISSIONARY BAPTIST; ARDEN PRES-
BYTERIAN CHURCH; ARDEN SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST;
ASBURY MEMORIAL UM CHURCH; CHURCH OF GOD OF
PROPHECY; CHURCH OF GOD; LATTER DAY SAINTS;
CHURCH OF THE REDEEMER EPISCOPAL,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District
Judge. (CA-00-114-1-T)
Submitted: August 30, 2000 Decided: September 6, 2000
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
Michael Craig Clark, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Michael Craig Clark appeals the district court’s order dis-
missing his civil action for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(e) (West Supp.
2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opin-
ion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the
reasoning of the district court. See Clark v. Conoco, Inc., No.
CA-00-114-1-T (W.D.N.C. June 13, 2000). 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 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.