Filed: Dec. 19, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-2083 L. RUTHER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ARCHDIOCESE CATHOLIC; EDWARD T. O’MEARA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:19-cv-00654-JAG) Submitted: December 17, 2019 Decided: December 19, 2019 Before KING, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. L. Ruther, Appella
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-2083 L. RUTHER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ARCHDIOCESE CATHOLIC; EDWARD T. O’MEARA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:19-cv-00654-JAG) Submitted: December 17, 2019 Decided: December 19, 2019 Before KING, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. L. Ruther, Appellan..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-2083
L. RUTHER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ARCHDIOCESE CATHOLIC; EDWARD T. O’MEARA,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:19-cv-00654-JAG)
Submitted: December 17, 2019 Decided: December 19, 2019
Before KING, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
L. Ruther, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
L. Ruther appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil complaint as
frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) (2012). We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and
dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. Ruther v. Archdiocese
Catholic, No. 3:19-cv-00654-JAG (E.D. Va. Sept. 23, 2019). We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2