U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2001

Slappy v. Diehl

Slappy v. Diehl
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided July 20, 2001

Slappy v. Diehl

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6684

ISAAC EUGENE SLAPPY, Plaintiff - Appellant, and

JEFFERY RAY ADDY; MANSA MUSA BANSHEE, Plaintiffs, versus

J. BRYANT DIEHL; TOP REPUBLIC TOBACCO, Defendants - Appellees.

No. 01-6795

JEFFERY RAY ADDY, Plaintiff - Appellant, and

ISAAC EUGENE SLAPPY; MANSA MUSA BANSHEE, Plaintiffs, versus

J. BRYANT DIEHL; TOP REPUBLIC TOBACCO, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-99-3125-3-18BC)

Submitted: July 12, 2001 Decided: July 20, 2001

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Isaac Eugene Slappy, Jeffery Ray Addy, Appellants Pro Se. Terry B.

Millar, TERRY B. MILLAR, L.L.C., Rock Hill, South Carolina; Thomas Frank Dougall, BOWERS, ORR & DOUGALL, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Isaac Eugene Slappy and Jeffery Ray Addy appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on their motions for relief from judgment. We have reviewed the records and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Addy v. Diehl, No. CA-99- 3125-3-18BC (D.S.C. filed Mar. 22, 2001; entered Mar. 23, 2001; filed and entered Mar. 26, 2001). We deny Addy’s motion for appointment of counsel on appeal. 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

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