Filed: Oct. 13, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-2706 JAMES A. MURPHY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN H. DALTON, Secretary of the Navy, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-97-322-A) Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 13, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James A. Murphy
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-2706 JAMES A. MURPHY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN H. DALTON, Secretary of the Navy, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-97-322-A) Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 13, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James A. Murphy,..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-2706 JAMES A. MURPHY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN H. DALTON, Secretary of the Navy, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-97-322-A) Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 13, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James A. Murphy, Appellant Pro Se. Major Thomas Mercer Ray, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: James A. Murphy appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the Secretary of the Navy and dismissing his complaint challenging his involuntary discharge. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Murphy v. Dalton, No. CA-97-322-A (E.D. Va. Oct. 8, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten- tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
