Filed: Apr. 23, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1025 CHARLES DAVIS BURRELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; UNITED STATES ARMY; BURDEN SYKES, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-333) Submitted: April 5, 2002 Decided: April 23, 2002 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit J
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1025 CHARLES DAVIS BURRELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; UNITED STATES ARMY; BURDEN SYKES, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-333) Submitted: April 5, 2002 Decided: April 23, 2002 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Ju..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1025 CHARLES DAVIS BURRELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; UNITED STATES ARMY; BURDEN SYKES, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-333) Submitted: April 5, 2002 Decided: April 23, 2002 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Davis Burrell, Appellant Pro Se. Debra Jean Prillaman, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Charles Davis Burrell appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint. 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 Burrell v. United States, No. CA-01-333 (E.D. Va. Oct. 24, 2001). 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
