Filed: Aug. 24, 2020
Latest Update: Sep. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-1274 MELVIN DINKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. REGION TEN CSB, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (3:19-cv-00030-NKM) Submitted: August 20, 2020 Decided: August 24, 2020 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, WYNN, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Melvin Dinkins,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-1274 MELVIN DINKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. REGION TEN CSB, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (3:19-cv-00030-NKM) Submitted: August 20, 2020 Decided: August 24, 2020 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, WYNN, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Melvin Dinkins, A..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-1274
MELVIN DINKINS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
REGION TEN CSB,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (3:19-cv-00030-NKM)
Submitted: August 20, 2020 Decided: August 24, 2020
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, WYNN, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Melvin Dinkins, Appellant Pro Se. James Morton Bowling, ST. JOHN, BOWLING &
LAWRENCE, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Melvin Dinkins appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his complaint under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and
denying his postjudgment motions. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Dinkins v. Region
Ten CSB, No. 3:19-cv-00030-NKM (W.D. Va. Feb. 18, 2020 & March 5, 2020). We deny
Dinkins’ motion to expedite, and 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