TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Morton Waller v. Tappahannock Ford, Incorporated, and Ford Motor Company Albert Lumpkin, Owner of Tappahannock Ford, Inc.

Waller v. Tappahannock Ford, Inc., & Ford Motor Co., 43 F.3d 1469 (4th Cir. 1994)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
November 10, 1994
Docket
No. 94-1027
Citations
43 F.3d 14691994 WL 6221411994 U.S. App. LEXIS 40099
Status
Unpublished

Opinion

43 F.3d 1469

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Morton WALLER, Plaintiff Appellant, v. TAPPAHANNOCK FORD, INCORPORATED, Defendant Appellee, and Ford Motor Company; Albert Lumpkin, Owner of Tappahannock Ford, Inc., Defendants.

No. 94-1027.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 25, 1994 Decided Nov. 10, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-93-330)

Morton Waller, appellant pro se.

Douglas Andrew Barry, Hutchens & Hutchens, Richmond, Va., for appellee.

E.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before MURNAGHAN and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals from the district court's order granting judgment to the Defendants on Appellant's federal civil rights claims, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e (1988), and state false advertising claims. Va.Code Ann. Sec. 59.1-68.3 (Michie 1988). Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we grant Appellant's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Waller v. Tappahannock Ford, No. CA-93-330 (E.D. Va. Dec. 1, 1993). 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

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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