Filed: Apr. 30, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-2166 JAMES H. PICKETT, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN E. POTTER, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:05-cv-01210-CMH) Submitted: April 26, 2007 Decided: April 30, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James H. Pickett, Jr., Ap
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-2166 JAMES H. PICKETT, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN E. POTTER, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:05-cv-01210-CMH) Submitted: April 26, 2007 Decided: April 30, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James H. Pickett, Jr., App..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-2166 JAMES H. PICKETT, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN E. POTTER, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:05-cv-01210-CMH) Submitted: April 26, 2007 Decided: April 30, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James H. Pickett, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Ralph Andrew Price, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James H. Pickett, Jr., appeals the district court’s order granting the Defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Pickett’s motion to appoint counsel, and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Pickett v. Potter, No. 1:05-cv-01210-CMH (E.D. Va. Sept. 26, 2006). 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 -
