Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Matthew Corzine v. United States Army, 12-8024 (2013)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 12-8024 Visitors: 18
Filed: Apr. 17, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-8024 MATTHEW CORZINE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES ARMY; BRIGADIER GENERAL FORATER; LT. GENERAL #1 JOHN DOE; MAJOR ELIZABETH KINZIE; 2ND LT. COCHORAN; SGT. MORE; 1ST SGT. #2 JOHN DOE; SGT. #3 JOHN DOE; SGT. #4 JOHN DOE; SPECIALIST #5 JOHN DOE; SPECIALIST #6 JOHN DOE; PRIVATE #7 JOHN DOE; PRIVATE #8 JOHN DOE; PRIVATE #9 JOHN DOE; PRIVATE #10 JOHN DOE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-8024 MATTHEW CORZINE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES ARMY; BRIGADIER GENERAL FORATER; LT. GENERAL #1 JOHN DOE; MAJOR ELIZABETH KINZIE; 2ND LT. COCHORAN; SGT. MORE; 1ST SGT. #2 JOHN DOE; SGT. #3 JOHN DOE; SGT. #4 JOHN DOE; SPECIALIST #5 JOHN DOE; SPECIALIST #6 JOHN DOE; PRIVATE #7 JOHN DOE; PRIVATE #8 JOHN DOE; PRIVATE #9 JOHN DOE; PRIVATE #10 JOHN DOE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:11-cv-00461-FL) Submitted: April 15, 2013 Decided: April 17, 2013 Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Matthew Corzine, Appellant Pro Se. Shailika K. Shah, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Matthew Corzine appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation in part and denying his motion to appoint counsel and its order dismissing his civil action for lack 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. Corzine v. U.S. Army, No. 5:11-cv-00461-FL (E.D.N.C. Dec. 8, 2011; Nov. 1, 2012). 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
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer