Filed: Feb. 20, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2413 NORMAN L. STATON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (CA-02-26-6) Submitted: February 11, 2003 Decided: February 20, 2003 Before WILKINS, Chief Judge, and MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublish
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2413 NORMAN L. STATON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (CA-02-26-6) Submitted: February 11, 2003 Decided: February 20, 2003 Before WILKINS, Chief Judge, and MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublishe..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2413 NORMAN L. STATON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (CA-02-26-6) Submitted: February 11, 2003 Decided: February 20, 2003 Before WILKINS, Chief Judge, and MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Norman L. Staton, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Laurie Allyn Snyder, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; John P. Josephs, Jr., OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Norman L. Staton, Jr., appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Staton v. IRS, No. CA-02-26-6 (W.D. Va. Oct. 3, 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