Opinion · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
BURDICK v. PRITCHETT BIRCH, 326 Fed.Appx. 169 (4th Cir. 2009)
George E. BURDICK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PRITCHETT BIRCH, PLLC;Lloyd C. Smith, Jr.; Regina Parker; Samuel Grimes; Christopher B. McLendon,Defendants-Appellees., 326 F. App'x 169 (4th Cir. 2009)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 2009-06-05
- Topic
- general
BURDICK v. PRITCHETT BIRCH, 326 Fed.Appx. 169 (4th Cir. 2009) George E. BURDICK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PRITCHETT BIRCH, PLLC;Lloyd C. Smith, Jr.; Regina Parker; Samuel Grimes; Christopher B.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed BURDICK v. PRITCHETT BIRCH, 326 Fed.Appx. 169 (4th Cir. 2009). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
BURDICK v. PRITCHETT BIRCH,326 Fed.Appx. 169(4th Cir. 2009)
George E. BURDICK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PRITCHETT BIRCH, PLLC;
Lloyd C. Smith, Jr.; Regina Parker; Samuel Grimes; Christopher B. McLendon,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 09-1216.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 28, 2009.
Decided: June 5, 2009.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (4:08-cv-00053-BO).
George E. Burdick, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Graham Baker, Baker, Jenkins, Jones Daly, PA, Ahoskie, North Carolina, Grady L. Balentine, Jr., Special Deputy Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.Page 170
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
George E. Burdick appeals the district court's orders granting Defendants' motion to dismiss his civil complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denying his subsequent motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.Burdick v. PritchettBirch, PLLC, No. 4:08-cv-00053-BO (E.D.N.C. Nov. 17, 2008; Jan. 22, 2009). 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.
- [EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] ↩