Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Clark v. Snug Harbor Property, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a case between Michael and Eve Clark and the Snug Harbor Property Owners Association. The district court denied relief to the Clarks in their civil action against the association. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so they affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in that court's September 23, 2004 opinion. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2005-02-14 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 04-2273

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a case between Michael and Eve Clark and the Snug Harbor Property Owners Association. The district court denied relief to the Clarks in their civil action against the association. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so they affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in that court's September 23, 2004 opinion. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    7 views2 pages

    Clark v. Snug Harbor Property, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a case between Michael and Eve Clark and the Snug Harbor Property Owners Association. The district court denied relief to the Clarks in their civil action against the association. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so they affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in that court's September 23, 2004 opinion. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 04-2273

    MICHAEL CRAIG CLARK; EVE ANNA CLARK,


    Plaintiffs - Appellants,
    versus
    SNUG HARBOR PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION,
    Defendant - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. Terrence W. Boyle,
    District Judge. (CA-03-45-2)

    Submitted:

    February 9, 2005

    Decided:

    February 14, 2005

    Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Michael Craig Clark, Eve Anna Clark, Appellants Pro Se. Thomas
    Palmer Nash, IV, TRIMPI, NASH & HARMAN, LLP, Elizabeth City, North
    Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Michael

    Craig

    Clark

    and

    Eve

    Anna

    Clark

    appeal

    the

    district courts order denying relief on their civil action against


    the Snug Harbor Property Owners Association.
    record and find no reversible error.

    We have reviewed the

    Accordingly, we affirm for

    the reasons stated by the district court.

    See Clark v. Snug Harbor

    Prop. Owners Assn, No. CA-03-45-2 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 23, 2004).

    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

    - 2 -

    You might also like