Opinion

Viswanathan v. Board of Governors

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Filed
Sep 3, 1996
Status
Unpublished
Cited by
0 cases

The opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-1443

T. M. VISWANATHAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH

CAROLINA; C. D. SPANGLER, JR., in his official

capacity; FAYETTEVILLE STATE UNIVERSITY BOARD

OF TRUSTEES; JESSEE WILLIAMS, DR., in his

official and individual capacity; LLOYD V.

HACKLEY, DR., in his official and individual

capacity; LEO EDWARDS, DR., in his official

and individual capacity; JON YOUNG, DR., in

his official and individual capacity; MORRIS

BLOUNT, DR., in his official and individual

capacity; JOSEPH MONROE, DR., in his official

and individual capacity; CLARENCE WHITE, DR.,

in his official and individual capacity; KAYE

WEBB, in her official and individual capacity;

FELTON THOMAS, DR., in his individual and

official capacity; ALL DEFENDANTS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis-

trict of North Carolina, at Durham. Hiram H. Ward, Senior District

Judge. (CA-94-528-1)

Submitted: August 22, 1996 Decided: September 3, 1996

Before HALL, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

T. M. Viswanathan, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas J. Ziko, Celia Grasty

Jones, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh,

North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's orders granting

Defendants' motion to dismiss and denying Appellant's motion for

reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district

court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Viswanathan v. Board

of Governors, No. CA-94-528-1 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 1 & Apr. 24, 1996). In

light of the disposition of the appeal, we deny Appellant's motion

to vacate order. 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

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.