Filed: Nov. 09, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1925 KATHRYN MATSCH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee, and UNITED STATES ARMY, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-98-443-5-2BR) Submitted: November 4, 1999 Decided: November 9, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished pe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1925 KATHRYN MATSCH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee, and UNITED STATES ARMY, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-98-443-5-2BR) Submitted: November 4, 1999 Decided: November 9, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1925 KATHRYN MATSCH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee, and UNITED STATES ARMY, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-98-443-5-2BR) Submitted: November 4, 1999 Decided: November 9, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kathryn Matsch, Appellant Pro Se. Fenita Morris Shepard, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Kathryn Matsch appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendants on Matsch’s claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act. 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 Matsch v. United States, No. CA-98-443-5-2BR (E.D.N.C. June 16, 1999). 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
