Case ID: f-appx_124/html/0220-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Albert M. HARGROVE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Doctor Detlef STEINER, individually and professionally, Clarendon National Insurance Company; Midwestern Insurance Alliance, Incorporated; Cathy Ann New, individually and professionally, Midwestern Insurance Alliance, Incorporated; Norman E. Risen, individually and professionally, Midwestern Insurance Alliance, Incorporated; Batts Temporary Service, Incorporated, a/k/a Labor Works Source, Incorporated; Clarendon National Insurance Company; The Clarendon Group, Clarendon National Insurance Company, Redland Insurance Company, Harbor Speciality Insurance Company; Hannover Life Reassurance Company of America; Hannover Ruckversicherungs-Aktiengesell-Schaft; George T. Glenn, Deputy Commissioner, individual and official capacity, and the North Carolina Industrial Commission by and through the North Carolina Department of Commerce; Buck Lattimore, individual and official capacity and the North Carolina Industrial Commission by and through the North Carolina Department of Commerce, Defendants— Appellees.
    No. 05-1035.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: March 24, 2005.
    Decided: March 31, 2005.
    
      Albert M. Hargrove, Appellant pro se.
    Jennifer Susan Jerzak, Hedrick, Eat-man, Gardner and Kineheloe, Raleigh, North Carolina; Perry Cleveland Henson, Jr., Henson & Henson, L.L.P., Greensboro, North Carolina; Robert Thomas Hargett, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Albert Hargrove appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his complaint alleging violations of state and federal law in connection with the denial of his claim for state workers’ compensation benefits. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Hargrove v. Steiner, No. CA-04-304-5-FL (E.D.N.C. Dec. 23, 2004). We further deny Hargrove’s motion for a certificate of appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2553(c) as unnecessary to this 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