Filed: Jun. 01, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1054 ELISE SISK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (CA-98-79-L) Submitted: May 25, 1999 Decided: June 1, 1999 Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Elise Sisk, Appellant Pro Se. Edward Meade Mac
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1054 ELISE SISK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (CA-98-79-L) Submitted: May 25, 1999 Decided: June 1, 1999 Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Elise Sisk, Appellant Pro Se. Edward Meade Maco..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1054 ELISE SISK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (CA-98-79-L) Submitted: May 25, 1999 Decided: June 1, 1999 Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Elise Sisk, Appellant Pro Se. Edward Meade Macon, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Elise Sisk appeals the district court’s order dismissing her tort claim against the Commonwealth of Virginia. 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. See Sisk v. Virginia, No. CA-98-79-L (W.D. Va. Dec. 10, 1998). 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. AFFIRMED 2
