Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 5 views

    Larry Lee v. Office Depot Alfred Johnson Sandro Torrico Alex Lopez Walt David, 57 F.3d 1066, 4th Cir. (1995)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Larry Lee filed a complaint against Office Depot and several individuals alleging violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1985. The district court dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's dismissal based on the reasoning in the lower court's opinion. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument, finding the relevant facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the materials provided.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Larry Lee v. Office Depot Alfred Johnson Sandro Torrico Alex Lopez Walt David, 57 F.3d 1066, 4th Cir. (1995)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views1 page
    Larry Lee filed a complaint against Office Depot and several individuals alleging violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1985. The district court dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's dismissal based on the reasoning in the lower court's opinion. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument, finding the relevant facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the materials provided.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1995-06-13 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 57 F.3d 1066 Docket: 94-2458

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Larry Lee filed a complaint against Office Depot and several individuals alleging violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1985. The district court dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's dismissal based on the reasoning in the lower court's opinion. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument, finding the relevant facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the materials provided.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    5 views1 page

    Larry Lee v. Office Depot Alfred Johnson Sandro Torrico Alex Lopez Walt David, 57 F.3d 1066, 4th Cir. (1995)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Larry Lee filed a complaint against Office Depot and several individuals alleging violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1985. The district court dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's dismissal based on the reasoning in the lower court's opinion. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument, finding the relevant facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the materials provided.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 1

    57 F.

    3d 1066
    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.

    Larry LEE, Plaintiff-Appellant,


    v.
    OFFICE DEPOT; Alfred Johnson; Sandro Torrico; Alex
    Lopez;
    Walt David, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 94-2458.

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


    Submitted: May 18, 1995.
    Decided: June 13, 1995.

    Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER,


    Senior Circuit Judge.
    Larry Lee, Appellant Pro Se. Edward Mark Buxbaum, Whiteford, Taylor
    & Preston, Towson, MD, for Appellees.
    PER CURIAM:

    Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing his complaint in
    which he alleged violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.A. Sec.
    2000a (West 1994), and 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1985 (1988), pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.
    12(b)(6). 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. Lee v. Office Depot, No. CA-94-1164-AW (D. Md. Nov. 9, 1994). 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

    You might also like