U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 1990

Thomas Howard Whidden v. Peter Simmons, Keswick Gardens, Cliff, Mr., Gumminick Properties, Alfred J. Dickinson, Incorporated

Thomas Howard Whidden v. Peter Simmons, Keswick Gardens, Cliff, Mr., Gumminick Properties, Alfred J. Dickinson, Incorporated
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided December 7, 1990
919 F.2d 734; 1990 WL 193221 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Thomas Howard Whidden v. Peter Simmons, Keswick Gardens, Cliff, Mr., Gumminick Properties, Alfred J. Dickinson, Incorporated

Opinion

919 F.2d 734
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Thomas Howard WHIDDEN, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Peter SIMMONS, Keswick Gardens, Cliff, Mr., Gumminick
Properties, Alfred J. Dickinson, Incorporated,
Defendants-Appellees.

No. 90-1514.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 29, 1990.
Decided Dec. 7, 1990.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-90-175)

Thomas Howard Whidden, appellant pro se.

D. Eugene Webb, Jr., Mays & Valentine, Albert Peter Brodell, Williams, Mullen, Christian & Dobbins, John Marshall Wright, Jr., Downs & Wright, William Fisher Etherington, Beale, Wright, Balfour & Davidson, Richmond, Va., for appellees.

E.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before PHILLIPS, SPROUSE and CHAPMAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Thomas Howard Whidden appeals from the district court's order granting summary judgment to the defendants in his Fair Housing Act action. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. While we grant Whidden's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Whidden v. Simmons, CA-90-175 (E.D.Va. July 18, 1990). 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.

2

AFFIRMED.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.