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)
03-1611•Donald Sullivan v. United States of America
03-1611Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitSep 25, 2003
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1611
DONALD SULLIVAN; JEFFREY S. SULLIVAN,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; GEORGE W. BUSH; JOEL
HEFLEY, Chairman, House Committee on Official
Conduct; HENRY HYDE, Chairman, House Committee
on International Affairs; JOHN BARGO,
Chief-of-Staff, House Committee on Official
Conduct; 535 JOHN DOES,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (CA-03-39-7-F)
Submitted: August 28, 2003 Decided: September 25, 2003
Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
District Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Donald Sullivan, Jeffrey S. Sullivan, Appellants Pro Se. Rudolf A.
Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North
Carolina; Vincent Garvey, Scott Ramsey McIntosh, Teal Elizabeth
Luthy, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
Appellees.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Donald Sullivan and Jeffrey S. Sullivan appeal the district
court’s order dismissing their complaint and denying, as moot,
their motion for preliminary injunction. We have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for
the reasons stated by the district court. See Sullivan v. United
States, No. CA-03-39-7-F (E.D.N.C. Apr. 15, 2003). 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.