Filed: Jul. 19, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2605 JOSEPH B. KENNEDY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NEIL A.G. MCPHIE, individually and as director of Virginia Department of Employee Relations Counselors, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-99-358) Submitted: April 20, 2000 Decided: July 19, 2000 Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, a
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2605 JOSEPH B. KENNEDY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NEIL A.G. MCPHIE, individually and as director of Virginia Department of Employee Relations Counselors, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-99-358) Submitted: April 20, 2000 Decided: July 19, 2000 Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, an..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-2605
JOSEPH B. KENNEDY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
NEIL A.G. MCPHIE, individually and as director
of Virginia Department of Employee Relations
Counselors,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior Dis-
trict Judge. (CA-99-358)
Submitted: April 20, 2000 Decided: July 19, 2000
Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Cir-
cuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph B. Kennedy, Appellant Pro Se. Guy Winston Horsley, Jr.,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Joseph B. Kennedy appeals the district court’s order granting
Neil A.G. McPhie’s motion to dismiss filed under Rule 12(b)(1) and
(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and the district
court’s opinion issued from the bench and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See
Kennedy v. McPhie, No. CA-99-358 (E.D. Va. Nov. 5, 1999); see also
Lovern v. Edwards,
190 F.3d 648, 655 (4th Cir. 1999); Davis v. Pak,
856 F.2d 648, 650 (4th Cir. 1988). 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