Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Bender v. Gutierrez, 07-1263 (2007)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 07-1263 Visitors: 17
Filed: Aug. 28, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1263 EDWARD H. BENDER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CARLOS M. GUTIERREZ, in his official capacity as U.S. Secretary of Commerce; PATRICIA A. KURKUL, in her official capacity as Regional Administrator for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Walter D. Kelley, J
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1263 EDWARD H. BENDER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CARLOS M. GUTIERREZ, in his official capacity as U.S. Secretary of Commerce; PATRICIA A. KURKUL, in her official capacity as Regional Administrator for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Walter D. Kelley, Jr., District Judge. (2:03-cv-00519-WDK) Submitted: August 23, 2007 Decided: August 28, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edward H. Bender, Appellant Pro Se. Katherine W. Hazard, Meredith Lisa Flax, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; George Maralan Kelley, III, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Edward H. Bender appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief in his civil action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Bender v. Gutierrez, No. 2:03-cv-00519-WDK (E.D. Va. Jan. 25, 2007). 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