Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Dickey v. United States, 04-2410 (2005)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-2410 Visitors: 11
Filed: May 17, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2410 CYNTHIA LOUISE DICKEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant & Third Party Plaintiff - Appellee, versus SHAUNA MACKE, Third Party Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-03-761-2) Submitted: April 22, 2005 Decided: May 17, 2005 Before WILKINSON and LUTTIG, Circuit J
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2410 CYNTHIA LOUISE DICKEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant & Third Party Plaintiff - Appellee, versus SHAUNA MACKE, Third Party Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-03-761-2) Submitted: April 22, 2005 Decided: May 17, 2005 Before WILKINSON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeffrey F. Brooke, HUFF, POOLE & MAHONEY, P.C., Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Kent P. Porter, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia; George Janis Dancigers, Ann J. Premer, MCKENRY, DANCIGERS, WARNER, DAWSON & LAKE, P.C., Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Cynthia Louise Dickey appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the United States in her action filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the joint appendix and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Dickey v. United States, No. CA-03-761-2 (E.D. Va. Sept. 24, 2004). 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 - 3 -
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