Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Parker v. Blanton, 03-2077 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-2077 Visitors: 12
Filed: Nov. 14, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2077 JACKIE R. PARKER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus T. D. BLANTON, Lifting and Handling Director, Code 700, Norfolk Naval Shipyard; J. L. ANDERSON, Security Services Branch, Code 1121.3, Security Office, Norfolk Naval Shipyard; V. BARNES, Director, Department of Navy, Central Adjudication Facility; MATHEW MALONE, Department of Defense, Defense Legal Services Agency, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals, Defendants - Appe
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2077 JACKIE R. PARKER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus T. D. BLANTON, Lifting and Handling Director, Code 700, Norfolk Naval Shipyard; J. L. ANDERSON, Security Services Branch, Code 1121.3, Security Office, Norfolk Naval Shipyard; V. BARNES, Director, Department of Navy, Central Adjudication Facility; MATHEW MALONE, Department of Defense, Defense Legal Services Agency, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-03-133-2) Submitted: November 5, 2003 Decided: November 14, 2003 Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jackie R. Parker, Appellant Pro Se. Lawrence Richard Leonard, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Jackie R. Parker appeals the district court’s order granting the Government’s motion for summary judgment in his civil action concerning revocation of his security clearance. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Parker v. Blanton, No. CA-03-133-2 (E.D. Va. June 30, 2003). 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