Filed: Apr. 26, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-2396 BANORO GARRETT; CURTEL GARRETT, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. SORENTO BURNS; ASHTON H. PULLY, JR.; GREAGORY W. KLEIN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:09-cv-00558-RAJ-FBS) Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: April 26, 2010 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-2396 BANORO GARRETT; CURTEL GARRETT, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. SORENTO BURNS; ASHTON H. PULLY, JR.; GREAGORY W. KLEIN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:09-cv-00558-RAJ-FBS) Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: April 26, 2010 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by u..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-2396 BANORO GARRETT; CURTEL GARRETT, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. SORENTO BURNS; ASHTON H. PULLY, JR.; GREAGORY W. KLEIN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:09-cv-00558-RAJ-FBS) Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: April 26, 2010 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Banoro Garrett, Curtel Garrett, Appellants Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Appellants appeal the district court’s order dismissing their civil action for lack of jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. Garrett v. Burns, No. 2:09-cv-00558-RAJ-FBS (E.D. Va. Dec. 16, 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. DISMISSED 2
