Court Opinion

ID: 995848
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 00:42:51.182498+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:01.144994
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 98-1729

BASIL F. GRAHAM,

                                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus

BILL CLINTON, President,

                                              Defendant - Appellee.

                            No. 98-1733

BASIL F. GRAHAM,

                                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus

BILL BLACK; LARRY SEIGLER;     JOHN   SHERIDAN;
TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY,

                                            Defendants - Appellees.
                             No. 98-1756

BASIL F. GRAHAM,

                                              Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus

HARRY COX,

                                              Defendant - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior Dis-
trict Judge. (CA-98-162-3, CA-98-163-3, CA-98-164)

Submitted:   July 22, 1998                 Decided:   August 5, 1998

Before ERVIN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Basil F. Graham, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

                                  2
PER CURIAM:

     Basil F. Graham filed three civil actions. In No. 98-1729,

Graham filed a complaint against President Clinton, and in No. 98-

1733 and 98-1756, Graham filed a complaint against his former

employers. The district court dismissed each complaint without

prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. We

have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. Graham v. Clinton, No. CA-98-162-3; Graham v.

Black, No. CA-98-163-3; Graham v. Cox, No. CA-98-164 (E.D. Va. May

7, 1998). 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

                                3