Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 6 views

    Harrison v. Ford, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Lawrence Michael Harrison Sr.'s civil action for lack of jurisdiction, but modified the dismissal to be without prejudice. The district court had dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the reasoning of the district court.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    Harrison v. Ford, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Lawrence Michael Harrison Sr.'s civil action for lack of jurisdiction, but modified the dismissal to be without prejudice. The district court had dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the reasoning of the district court.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2000-03-30 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 99-7569

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Lawrence Michael Harrison Sr.'s civil action for lack of jurisdiction, but modified the dismissal to be without prejudice. The district court had dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the reasoning of the district court.

    Copyright:

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

    Harrison v. Ford, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Lawrence Michael Harrison Sr.'s civil action for lack of jurisdiction, but modified the dismissal to be without prejudice. The district court had dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the reasoning of the district court.

    Copyright:

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

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 99-7569

    LAWRENCE MICHAEL HARRISON, SR.,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    GEORGE C. FORD; MICHAEL SPILLAN; JANE DOE; BOB
    ALLISON,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-99-347-5-BO)

    Submitted:

    March 23, 2000

    Decided:

    March 30, 2000

    Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Lawrence Michael Harrison, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Walter Edgar
    Brock, Jr., YOUNG, MOORE & HENDERSON, P.A., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Lawrence Michael Harrison, Sr., appeals the district courts
    order dismissing his civil action for lack of jurisdiction.

    We

    have reviewed the record and the district courts opinion and find
    no reversible error.

    Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of

    the district court, but modify to reflect a dismissal without


    prejudice. See Harrison v. Ford, No. CA-99-347-5-BO (E.D.N.C. Nov.
    1, 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 AS MODIFIED

    You might also like