Roy v. Singleton

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

Argued Nov. 19, 1996. Decided Dec. 2, 1996.

This page is marked noindex.

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1996-12-02

Relies on Social Consultants International, Incorporated v. Robert Winship Haskell, and First National Bank of Maryland

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1996-12-02

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently March 2017

1 district ·

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Michael Lee Roy, Appellant Pro Se.

Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

¶1

Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his civil action for lack of jurisdiction. 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. Roy v. Singleton, No. CA-96-369 (E.D.Va. July 17, 1996). 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