Filed: Mar. 12, 2020
Latest Update: Mar. 12, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-2458 MARJORY CHILDS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WESTERN TIDEWATER COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, Chief District Judge. (2:19-cv-00002-MSD-RJK) Submitted: March 10, 2020 Decided: March 12, 2020 Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curia
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-2458 MARJORY CHILDS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WESTERN TIDEWATER COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, Chief District Judge. (2:19-cv-00002-MSD-RJK) Submitted: March 10, 2020 Decided: March 12, 2020 Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-2458 MARJORY CHILDS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WESTERN TIDEWATER COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, Chief District Judge. (2:19-cv-00002-MSD-RJK) Submitted: March 10, 2020 Decided: March 12, 2020 Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marjory Childs, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Marjory Childs appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Childs v. W. Tidewater Cmty. Servs. Bd., No. 2:19-cv-00002-MSD-RJK (E.D. Va. Nov. 18, 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. AFFIRMED 2
