Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Burnley v. United States, 96-1030 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-1030 Visitors: 2
Filed: Jun. 03, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1030 JOHN RODGERS BURNLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS; BOARD OF CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS; NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD; SECRETARY OF THE NAVY; DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Loan Processing Section, Roanoke, Virginia; DEPART- MENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Loan Guaranty Divi- sion; DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS OF CLEVE- LAND, OHIO; DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS OF TH
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1030 JOHN RODGERS BURNLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS; BOARD OF CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS; NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD; SECRETARY OF THE NAVY; DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Loan Processing Section, Roanoke, Virginia; DEPART- MENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Loan Guaranty Divi- sion; DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS OF CLEVE- LAND, OHIO; DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL, WASHINGTON, DC; SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-95-743) Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: June 3, 1996 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Rodgers Burnley, Appellant Pro Se. Roger William Frydrychowksi, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing his complaint for lack of jurisdiction. 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. Burnley v. United States, No. CA-95-743 (E.D. Va. Dec. 15, 1995). 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
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