Filed: Sep. 30, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1601 DON BENNY ANDERSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. “UNITED STATES” FEDERAL CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:13-cv-00029-JCC-JFA) Submitted: September 26, 2013 Decided: September 30, 2013 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Do
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1601 DON BENNY ANDERSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. “UNITED STATES” FEDERAL CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:13-cv-00029-JCC-JFA) Submitted: September 26, 2013 Decided: September 30, 2013 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Don..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1601 DON BENNY ANDERSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. “UNITED STATES” FEDERAL CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:13-cv-00029-JCC-JFA) Submitted: September 26, 2013 Decided: September 30, 2013 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Don Benny Anderson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Don Benny Anderson appeals the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 motion by which he challenged the denial of prior motions to reconsider the district court’s denial of his motion for a declaratory judgment. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. 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. DISMISSED 2
