Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Johnson v. Pep Boys, 05-1612 (2006)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 05-1612 Visitors: 20
Filed: Jan. 30, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1612 BENJAMIN A. JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PEP BOYS - MANNY, MOE & JACK; UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA; US GOVERNMENT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-04-632-2) Submitted: January 26, 2006 Decided: January 30, 2006 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1612 BENJAMIN A. JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PEP BOYS - MANNY, MOE & JACK; UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA; US GOVERNMENT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-04-632-2) Submitted: January 26, 2006 Decided: January 30, 2006 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Benjamin A. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Daryl Eugene Webb, Jr., Andrew Philip Sherrod, TROUTMAN & SANDERS, LLP, Richmond, Virginia; Edwin Ford Stephens, CHRISTIAN & BARTON, LLP, Richmond, Virginia; Kent Pendleton Porter, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Benjamin A. Johnson appeals the district court’s order granting the Defendants’ motions to dismiss Johnson’s civil action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Johnson v. Pep Boys, No. CA-04-632-2 (E.D. Va. Jun. 14, 2005). 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 -
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer