Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Zekanis v. United States, 00-1239 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-1239 Visitors: 12
Filed: Oct. 06, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1239 FRANCIS ZEKANIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee, and VA MEDICAL CENTER, MARTINSBURG, WEST VIRGINIA; DONALD K. STEVENS, Recreation Specialist, VA Medical Center, Martinsburg; PM&R RECREATION ASSISTANT, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. W. Craig Broadwater, Dis- trict Judge. (CA-99-62, CA-99-
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1239 FRANCIS ZEKANIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee, and VA MEDICAL CENTER, MARTINSBURG, WEST VIRGINIA; DONALD K. STEVENS, Recreation Specialist, VA Medical Center, Martinsburg; PM&R RECREATION ASSISTANT, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. W. Craig Broadwater, Dis- trict Judge. (CA-99-62, CA-99-63) Submitted: June 30, 2000 Decided: October 6, 2000 Before LUTTIG and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Francis Zekanis, Appellant Pro Se. Patrick Michael Flatley, Assis- tant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Francis Zekanis appeals the district court’s order dismissing this action for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies in accordance with the provisions of 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 Zekanis v. United States, Nos. CA-99-62; CA-99-63 (N.D.W. Va. Feb. 14, 2000). We dispense with oral argu- ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre- sented 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