Filed: Aug. 14, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1391 MAI CHAPPEL, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. LOAN T. PHAN, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:13-cv-00082-REP) Submitted: August 6, 2013 Decided: August 14, 2013 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mai Chappel, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1391 MAI CHAPPEL, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. LOAN T. PHAN, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:13-cv-00082-REP) Submitted: August 6, 2013 Decided: August 14, 2013 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mai Chappel, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished o..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1391 MAI CHAPPEL, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. LOAN T. PHAN, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:13-cv-00082-REP) Submitted: August 6, 2013 Decided: August 14, 2013 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mai Chappel, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Mai Chappel appeals the district court’s order dismissing this action for want of subject matter jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Chappel v. Phan, No. 3:13-cv-00082-REP (E.D. Va. Feb. 15, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
