Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 16 views

    Clark v. United States, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Tyrone Clark appealed the district court's denial of his motion for joinder of a party and motion to set aside judgment. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The appellate court dispensed with oral arguments, as the facts and legal issues were adequately explained in the materials provided. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision based on the reasoning provided in that lower court's opinion.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Clark v. United States, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    16 views2 pages
    Tyrone Clark appealed the district court's denial of his motion for joinder of a party and motion to set aside judgment. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The appellate court dispensed with oral arguments, as the facts and legal issues were adequately explained in the materials provided. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision based on the reasoning provided in that lower court's opinion.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-09-03 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 96-6318

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Tyrone Clark appealed the district court's denial of his motion for joinder of a party and motion to set aside judgment. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The appellate court dispensed with oral arguments, as the facts and legal issues were adequately explained in the materials provided. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision based on the reasoning provided in that lower court's opinion.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    16 views2 pages

    Clark v. United States, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Tyrone Clark appealed the district court's denial of his motion for joinder of a party and motion to set aside judgment. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The appellate court dispensed with oral arguments, as the facts and legal issues were adequately explained in the materials provided. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision based on the reasoning provided in that lower court's opinion.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    You are on page 1of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 96-6318

    TYRONE CLARK,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Defendant - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge.
    (CA-95-265-JFM, CR-92-293-JFM)
    Submitted:

    August 22, 1996

    Decided:

    September 3, 1996

    Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.


    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Tyrone Clark, Appellant Pro Se. Lynn Ann Battaglia, United States
    Attorney, Philip S. Jackson, Assistant United States Attorney,
    Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his
    motion for joinder of a party and his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion
    to set aside a judgment. 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. Clark v. United
    States, Nos. CR-92-293-JFM; CA-95-265-JFM (D. Md. Jan 31, 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

    You might also like