William Matchem v. Anthony M. Frank, Postmaster Gen. United States Postal Serv., 68 F.3d 460 (4th Cir. 1995). · Go Syfert
Search
William Matchem v. Anthony M. Frank, Postmaster Gen. United States Postal Serv., 68 F.3d 460 (4th Cir. 1995). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
44 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Green v. North Arundel Hospital Association, Inc. (md, 2001-11-27)
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995 2010 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Green v. North Arundel Hospital Association, Inc. (2×)
Md. · 2001 · signal: see also · confidence low
Charles County, 766 F.Supp. 744 (E.D.Mo. 1991) (noting that the ADA applies to physical surroundings of a federal courthouse)); see also Livingston v. Guice, 68 F.3d 460 (4th Cir.1995) (holding that a judge was not immune from liability for violating the ADA by not accommodating a physically handicapped person who needed special access to a restroom during trial).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
William Matchem
v.
Anthony M. Frank, Postmaster General United States Postal Service
94-2625.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Oct 17, 1995.
68 F.3d 460
Unpublished

68 F.3d 460

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
William MATCHEM, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Anthony M. FRANK, Postmaster General; United States Postal
Service, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 94-2625.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Sept. 19, 1995.
Decided: Oct. 17, 1995.

William Matchem, Appellant Pro Se.

G. Norman Acker, III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINSON, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing this employment discrimination action as time-barred and finding it unnecessary to appoint either a guardian ad litem or an attorney for Appellant. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Matchem v. Frank, No. CA-91-811 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 28, 1994). 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