Filed: Sep. 06, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1474 BUSTER E. TIFFANY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LOUIS CALDERA, Secretary of the Army, United States Army, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-99-663-3) Submitted: August 30, 2000 Decided: September 6, 2000 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam op
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1474 BUSTER E. TIFFANY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LOUIS CALDERA, Secretary of the Army, United States Army, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-99-663-3) Submitted: August 30, 2000 Decided: September 6, 2000 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opi..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1474 BUSTER E. TIFFANY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LOUIS CALDERA, Secretary of the Army, United States Army, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-99-663-3) Submitted: August 30, 2000 Decided: September 6, 2000 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Buster E. Tiffany, Appellant Pro Se. Debra Jean Prillaman, Assis- tant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Buster E. Tiffany appeals the district court’s order dismiss- ing his civil action challenging an unfavorable decision of the Army Decorations Board. We have reviewed the record and the dis- trict court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Tiffany v. Caldera, No. CA-99-663-3 (E.D. Va. Mar. 15, 2000). 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
