Filed: Mar. 31, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1138 CHARLES WILLIAM LEVY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS, FAIRFAX COUNTY VIRGINIA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-98-1519-A) Submitted: March 25, 1999 Decided: March 31, 1999 Before WILKINS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by un
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1138 CHARLES WILLIAM LEVY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS, FAIRFAX COUNTY VIRGINIA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-98-1519-A) Submitted: March 25, 1999 Decided: March 31, 1999 Before WILKINS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unp..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1138 CHARLES WILLIAM LEVY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS, FAIRFAX COUNTY VIRGINIA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-98-1519-A) Submitted: March 25, 1999 Decided: March 31, 1999 Before WILKINS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles William Levy, Appellant Pro Se. Ingo Frank Burghardt, HUNTON & WILLIAMS, McLean, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Charles William Levy appeals from the district court’s orders dismissing his civil action and denying his motion for recon- sideration. Our review of the record and the district court’s opinions discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Levy v. Superintendent of Pub. Schs., No. CA-98-1519-A (E.D. Va. Dec. 2 & 11, 1998). We dis- pense 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. AFFIRMED 2
