991 F2d 789 Jeffress v. Titius and Seius B

991 F.2d 789

Jesse Wilson JEFFRESS, Trustee in Res of Moses Nursing Home,
Incorporated, t/a Moses Residential Home, and
Moses Life Insurance Association,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
TITIUS AND SEIUS, Public Officials of the State of Virginia;
Edwin B. Baker, Commonwealth Attorney, County of Charlotte,
State of Virginia; Gordon Ragland, Director, Charlotte
County Department of Social Services; Board of Supervisors
for the County of Charlotte; Treasurer for the County of
Charlotte; County Administrator for the County of
Charlotte; First State Bank; Jack Petrie, District
Director, Richmond District Office, Internal Revenue
Service; Lawrence Douglas Wilder, Governor, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 92-1434.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 13, 1992
Decided: April 12, 1993

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Chief District Judge. (CA-90-256-R)

Jesse Wilson Jeffress, Appellant Pro Se.

Barbara J. Gaden, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia; Charles F. Midkiff, Regina Maria Policano, Midkiff & Hiner, P.C., Richmond, Virginia; Margaret Ann Dean Moncure, Charlotte Courthouse, Virginia, for Appellees.

W.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before WILKINSON, WILKINS, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.


Advertisement
view counter
1

PER CURIAM;

2

Jesse Wilson Jeffress appeals from the district court's orders denying several post-judgment motions. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that there was no abuse of discretion and this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Jeffress v. Titius and Seius, No. CA-90256-R (W.D. Va. March 25, 1992). 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