Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Keltner v. Shaver, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of Robert E. Keltner v. Holmes R. Shaver et al. affirming the district court's grant of summary judgment to the defendants on Keltner's claims that vehicles were improperly removed from his property. The panel found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. The appeals court affirmed the lower court's rulings without requiring oral arguments as the facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the materials provided.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2002-02-21 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 01-2370

    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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of Robert E. Keltner v. Holmes R. Shaver et al. affirming the district court's grant of summary judgment to the defendants on Keltner's claims that vehicles were improperly removed from his property. The panel found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. The appeals court affirmed the lower court's rulings without requiring oral arguments as the facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the materials provided.

    Copyright:

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

    Keltner v. Shaver, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of Robert E. Keltner v. Holmes R. Shaver et al. affirming the district court's grant of summary judgment to the defendants on Keltner's claims that vehicles were improperly removed from his property. The panel found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. The appeals court affirmed the lower court's rulings without requiring oral arguments as the facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the materials provided.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 01-2370

    ROBERT E. KELTNER,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    HOLMES R. SHAVER, individually and as President of the Wood County Commission; DAVID A.
    COUCH, individually and as member of the Wood
    County Commission; ROBERT K. TEBAY, individually and as member of the Wood County
    Commission; KEITH LITTON, individually and as
    a duly appointed officer of the Wood County
    Commission; MICHAEL BALZANO; LOUIS BALZANO,
    d/b/a Eddies Auto Parts Company,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
    District of West Virinia, at Parkersburg.
    Robert C. Chambers,
    District Judge. (CA-00-1162-6)

    Submitted:

    February 14, 2002

    Decided:

    February 21, 2002

    Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Robert E. Keltner, Appellant Pro Se.
    Mark William Browning,
    SHUMAN, MCCLUSKEY & SLICER, P.L.L.C., Charleston, West Virginia;
    David Edward Schumacher, SCHUMACHER, FRANCIS & NELSON, Charleston,
    West Virginia, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Robert E. Keltner appeals two separate district court orders
    granting the Appellees motions for summary judgment on his civil
    action alleging that various vehicles were improperly removed from
    his property. We have reviewed the record and the district courts
    opinions and find no reversible error.
    the reasoning of the district court.

    Accordingly, we affirm on
    See Keltner v. Shaver, No.

    CA-00-1162-6 (S.D.W. Va. filed Oct. 12, 2001; entered Oct. 15,
    2001).

    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