Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Scott v. Veterans Admin Med, 00-2355 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-2355 Visitors: 39
Filed: Dec. 19, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2355 JAMES SCOTT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BETTY W. STORY, Ph.D., Veterans Administration Medical Center; STEVE SANZO, Chief of Secu- rity, Veteran Administration Medical Center; SANDRA K. BRYAON, Chief Cost Recovery, Vet- erans Administration Medical Center; BEVERLY W. EDMONDS, M.S.W.; ELAINE CORRORS, Nurse, nursing station (2 West), Veterans Administra- tion Medical Center, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the Uni
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2355 JAMES SCOTT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BETTY W. STORY, Ph.D., Veterans Administration Medical Center; STEVE SANZO, Chief of Secu- rity, Veteran Administration Medical Center; SANDRA K. BRYAON, Chief Cost Recovery, Vet- erans Administration Medical Center; BEVERLY W. EDMONDS, M.S.W.; ELAINE CORRORS, Nurse, nursing station (2 West), Veterans Administra- tion Medical Center, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-99-152-4) Submitted: December 14, 2000 Decided: December 19, 2000 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Scott, Appellant Pro Se. Kent Pendleton Porter, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: James Scott Sr. appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment on his claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1346 (West 1993 & Supp. 2000) and the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C.A. § 552a (West 1996 & Supp. 2000), and dismissing his state law claims. 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 Scott v. Veterans Admin. Medical Ctr., No. CA-99-152-4 (E.D. Va. Aug. 2, 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
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