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)
11-1748•Millard Burton Harman v. David A. Bunch; Kenneth Droddy
11-1748Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJan 24, 2012
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1748
MILLARD BURTON HARMAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DAVID A. BUNCH; KENNETH DRODDY,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief
District Judge. (3:10-cv-00759-JRS-DWD)
Submitted: January 9, 2012 Decided: January 24, 2012
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Scott Gregory Crowley, Sr., CROWLEY & CROWLEY, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellant. William F. Etherington, Leslie A.
Winneberger, BEALE, DAVIDSON, ETHERINGTON & MORRIS, P.C.,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Millard Burton Harman appeals the district court’s
order granting summary judgment to Appellees. We have reviewed
the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm
for the reasons stated by the district court. Harman v. Bunch,
No. 3:10-cv-00759-JRS-DWD (E.D. Va. June 16, 2011). 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.