Filed: May 22, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1206 ELLIS S. FRISON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ANTHONY J. PRINCIPI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-01-3280-AW) Submitted: May 16, 2002 Decided: May 22, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1206 ELLIS S. FRISON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ANTHONY J. PRINCIPI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-01-3280-AW) Submitted: May 16, 2002 Decided: May 22, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished p..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1206 ELLIS S. FRISON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ANTHONY J. PRINCIPI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-01-3280-AW) Submitted: May 16, 2002 Decided: May 22, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ellis S. Frison, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Ellis S. Frison, Jr., appeals the district court’s orders denying him injunctive relief. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Frison v. Principi, No. CA-01-3280 (D. Md. filed Nov. 7, 2001 & entered Nov. 8, 2001; Dec. 21, 2001; Feb. 19, 2002). 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 2
