TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Charles H. Meyer, Jr.

United States v. Meyer, 860 F.2d 1080 (6th Cir. 1988)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
October 21, 1988
Docket
No. 88-3295
Citations
860 F.2d 10801988 WL 1129891988 U.S. App. LEXIS 14333
Status
Unpublished

Opinion

860 F.2d 1080

Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles H. MEYER, Jr., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 88-3295.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Oct. 21, 1988.

1

Before MERRITT and RYAN, Circuit Judges, and NICHOLAS J. WALINSKI, Senior District Judge. *

ORDER 2

Defendant, Charles H. Meyer, Jr., appeals the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, United States of America. This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination of the record and the briefs, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a).

3

In an action to recoup an unearned military selective reenlistment bonus brought by the United States, defendant Meyer failed to contradict in any manner the government's showing that it was entitled to summary judgment. On appeal, Meyer makes four arguments. These arguments were not raised in the district court, however, and are not now reviewable. Chandler v. Jones, 813 F.2d 773, 777 (6th Cir.1987); United States v. Baker, 807 F.2d 1315, 1321 (6th Cir.1987).

4

Upon review, we conclude that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of the United States. Meyer improperly rested on his pleading and failed to contradict in any manner the showing made by the government. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 321 (1982); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986); Gregg v. Allen Bradley Co., 801 F.2d 859, 861 (6th Cir.1986).

5

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is hereby affirmed. Rule 9(b)(5), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

* The Honorable Nicholas J. Walinski, Senior U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 5

DepthCaseCited by
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) 134,871
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) 119,810
prod.liab.rep.(cch)p 11,133 Steven Gregg v. Allen-Bradley Co., 801 F.2d 859 (6th Cir. 1986) 455
Chandler v. Otie Jones & Attorney Gen. of the State of Tenn., 813 F.2d 773 (6th Cir. 1987) 150
United States v. Baker, 807 F.2d 1315 (6th Cir. 1986) 73

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list