Filed: Sep. 26, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1563 JOHN FITZGERALD ROOKS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (2:18-cv-00016-BO) Submitted: September 24, 2019 Decided: September 26, 2019 Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1563 JOHN FITZGERALD ROOKS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (2:18-cv-00016-BO) Submitted: September 24, 2019 Decided: September 26, 2019 Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1563 JOHN FITZGERALD ROOKS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (2:18-cv-00016-BO) Submitted: September 24, 2019 Decided: September 26, 2019 Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Fitzgerald Rooks, Appellant Pro Se. Joshua Bryan Royster, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: John Fitzgerald Rooks appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss and denying as moot Rooks’ motions for default judgment. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Rooks v. U.S. Postal Serv., No. 2:18-cv-00016-BO (E.D.N.C. Apr. 24, 2019). 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
