Filed: Apr. 04, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-2037 WILLIAM LEE GRANT, II, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, Chief District Judge. (2:18-cv-00449-MSD-LRL) Submitted: March 29, 2019 Decided: April 4, 2019 Before WYNN, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Lee Gran
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-2037 WILLIAM LEE GRANT, II, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, Chief District Judge. (2:18-cv-00449-MSD-LRL) Submitted: March 29, 2019 Decided: April 4, 2019 Before WYNN, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Lee Grant..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-2037
WILLIAM LEE GRANT, II,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, Chief District Judge. (2:18-cv-00449-MSD-LRL)
Submitted: March 29, 2019 Decided: April 4, 2019
Before WYNN, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Lee Grant, II, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William Lee Grant, II, appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint
as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012). We have reviewed the record and
find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for the reasons
stated by the district court. Grant v. U.S. Dep’t of Defense, No. 2:18-cv-00449-MSD-
LRL (E.D. Va. Aug. 28, 2018). 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