Filed: Feb. 03, 2010
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1628 TODD M. JACK, MS, PhD, Trustee, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PRESIDENT CUTLER DAWSON, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (5:09-cv-00032-gec) Submitted: January 20, 2010 Decided: February 3, 2010 Before MICHAEL and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1628 TODD M. JACK, MS, PhD, Trustee, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PRESIDENT CUTLER DAWSON, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (5:09-cv-00032-gec) Submitted: January 20, 2010 Decided: February 3, 2010 Before MICHAEL and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1628 TODD M. JACK, MS, PhD, Trustee, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PRESIDENT CUTLER DAWSON, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (5:09-cv-00032-gec) Submitted: January 20, 2010 Decided: February 3, 2010 Before MICHAEL and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Todd M. Jack, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Todd M. Jack appeals the district court’s order dismissing this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Jack v. Dawson, No. 5:09-cv-00032-gec (W.D. Va. May 20, 2009). 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
