Richard Allen Boothe v. C. E. Thompson, 27 F.3d 562 (4th Cir. 1994). · Go Syfert
Search
Richard Allen Boothe v. C. E. Thompson, 27 F.3d 562 (4th Cir. 1994). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
36 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Gentry v. East West Partners Club Management Co. (ca4, 2016-03-04)
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1994 2010 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Gentry v. East West Partners Club Management Co.
4th Cir. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See Curley v. Standard Motor *242 Prods., Inc., 27 F.3d 562 , 1994 WL 260804, at *2 (4th Cir.1994) (unpublished table decision) (affirming denial of motion for a new trial that- was “based primarily :on objections which were foreclosed by. [party’s] failure to object to the introduction of evidence, and [party’s] approval of, or failure to object to the court’s instructions”); see also Bryant v. Mathis, 278 F.2d 19, 20 (D.C.Cir.1960) (affirming denial of motion for a new trial on damages where plaintiff was entitled to, but did not' request, instruction that lost wages were recoverab…
discussed Cited "see" Thomas Davis v. MPW Industrial Services, Inc.
4th Cir. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
See Curley v. Standard Motor Prods., Inc., 27 F.3d 562 (4th Cir.1994) (unpublished table decision) (affirming denial of motion for a new trial where the “motion for a new trial was based primarily on objections which were foreclosed by [party’s] failure to object to the introduction of evidence, and [party’s] approval of, or failure to object to the court’s instructions”).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Abbott v. Elwood Staffing Services Inc.
N.D. Ala. · 2014 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Ellis v. Kilgore, 27 F.3d 562 (table), 1994 WL 320233, at *1 (4th Cir.1994) (“The party opposing a motion for summary judgment may not merely rest on its pleadings but must demonstrate sufficient evidence, properly authenticated under Rule 56(e), which would be sufficient to support a jury verdict in its favor.”); Orr v. Bank of America, NT & SA, 285 F.3d 764, 773 [(9th Cir.2002)] (“We have repeatedly held that unauthenticated documents cannot be considered in a motion for summary judgment.”).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Pitten v. Jacobs
D.S.C. · 1995 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also, Wexner v. First Manhattan Co., 902 F.2d 169, 172 (2d Cir.1990) (plaintiff must allege specific facts that give rise “to a ‘strong inference’ of fraudulent intent”). 13 There is yet another reason to undertake the Rule 9(b) inquiry with particular care in this case. “[T]his suit is not only against individuals, but also against the corporation, and, thus, against the shareholders themselves.” Borow v. nVIEW Corp., 829 F.Supp. 828, 832 (E.D.Va.1993), aff'd without pub. op. 27 F.3d 562 (4th Cir.1994).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Richard Allen Boothe
v.
C. E. Thompson
94-6165.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Jun 17, 1994.
27 F.3d 562
Unpublished

27 F.3d 562

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.
Richard Allen BOOTHE, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
C. E. THOMPSON, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 94-6165.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 1994.
Decided June 17, 1994.

Richard Allen Boothe, Appellant Pro Se.

E.D.Va.

DISMISSED.

Before WIDENER, WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988) complaint. The district court assessed a filing fee in accordance with Evans v. Croom, 650 F.2d 521 (4th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1153 (1982), and dismissed the case without prejudice when Appellant failed to comply with the fee order. Finding no abuse of discretion, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the 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.

DISMISSED