Filed: Jul. 23, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2258 BENJAMIN A. JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PEP BOYS - MANNY, MOE & JACK; UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-02-381-2) Submitted: May 23, 2003 Decided: July 23, 2003 Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per c
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2258 BENJAMIN A. JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PEP BOYS - MANNY, MOE & JACK; UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-02-381-2) Submitted: May 23, 2003 Decided: July 23, 2003 Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per cu..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2258 BENJAMIN A. JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PEP BOYS - MANNY, MOE & JACK; UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-02-381-2) Submitted: May 23, 2003 Decided: July 23, 2003 Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Benjamin A. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Daryl Eugene Webb, Jr., Kimberly W. Daniel, TROUTMAN SANDERS, L.L.P., Richmond, Virginia; Edwin Ford Stephens, CHRISTIAN & BARTON, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Benjamin A. Johnson appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action on res judicata and statute of limitations grounds. We have independently reviewed the record and find no error in the district court’s dismissal. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Johnson v. Pep Boys, No. CA-02-381-2 (E.D. Va. Oct. 23, 2002). 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