Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Richardson v. Sprint PCS, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views4 pages
    This document summarizes five appeals cases brought by William Lee Richardson Jr. against various companies. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of all five cases. The district court had dismissed the cases either for failure to state a valid legal claim or for lack of proper jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals found no reversible errors in the district court's rulings.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1999-10-26 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 99-2170

    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 summarizes five appeals cases brought by William Lee Richardson Jr. against various companies. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of all five cases. The district court had dismissed the cases either for failure to state a valid legal claim or for lack of proper jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals found no reversible errors in the district court's rulings.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    3 views4 pages

    Richardson v. Sprint PCS, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes five appeals cases brought by William Lee Richardson Jr. against various companies. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of all five cases. The district court had dismissed the cases either for failure to state a valid legal claim or for lack of proper jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals found no reversible errors in the district court's rulings.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 4

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 99-2170

    WILLIAM LEE RICHARDSON, JR.,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    SPRINT PCS,
    Defendant - Appellee.

    No. 99-2171

    WILLIAM LEE RICHARDSON, JR.,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    AMERICA ONLINE,
    Defendant - Appellee.

    No. 99-2172

    WILLIAM LEE RICHARDSON, JR.,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,

    and
    WILLIAM LEE RICHARDSON, SR.,
    Plaintiff,
    versus
    BELL ATLANTIC CORPORATION,
    Defendant - Appellee.

    No. 99-2173

    WILLIAM LEE RICHARDSON, JR.,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF MARYLAND,
    Defendant - Appellee.

    No. 99-2174

    WILLIAM LEE RICHARDSON, JR.,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    ROSEMARIE RICHARDSON,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    2

    Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. W. Craig Broadwater, District Judge. (CA-99-7-3, CA-99-27-3, CA-99-30-3, CA-99-51-3, CA99-52-3)

    Submitted:

    October 12, 1999

    Decided:

    October 26, 1999

    Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    William Lee Richardson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
    Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellees.

    Reid Broughton,

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    William Lee Richardson, Jr., appeals the district courts
    orders dismissing his five actions for failure to state a claim or
    meet jurisdictional requirements. We have reviewed the records and
    the

    district

    courts

    opinions

    and

    find

    no

    reversible

    error.

    Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See


    Richardson v. Sprint PCS, No. CA-99-7-3; Richardson v. America
    Online, No. CA-99-27-3; Richardson v. Bell Atlantic Corp., No. CA99-30-3; Richardson v. First Natl Bank of Md., No. CA-99-51-3; and
    Richardson v. Richardson, No. CA-99-52-3 (N.D.W. Va. Aug. 17,
    1999).

    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