Filed: Aug. 04, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1510 JUDY HARRISON, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY; FBI; CHICAGO FBI-DIVISIONS; WASHINGTON FBI-DIVISIONS; VIRGINIA FBI-DIVISIONS, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief District Judge. (3:10-cv-00163-JRS) Submitted: July 27, 2010 Decided: August 4, 2010 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON an
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1510 JUDY HARRISON, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY; FBI; CHICAGO FBI-DIVISIONS; WASHINGTON FBI-DIVISIONS; VIRGINIA FBI-DIVISIONS, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief District Judge. (3:10-cv-00163-JRS) Submitted: July 27, 2010 Decided: August 4, 2010 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1510
JUDY HARRISON,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY; FBI; CHICAGO FBI-DIVISIONS;
WASHINGTON FBI-DIVISIONS; VIRGINIA FBI-DIVISIONS,
Defendants – Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief
District Judge. (3:10-cv-00163-JRS)
Submitted: July 27, 2010 Decided: August 4, 2010
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit
Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Judy Harrison, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Judy Harrison appeals the district court’s order
dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. Harrison v. Central Intelligence Agency,
No. 3:10-cv-00163-JRS (E.D. Va. Apr. 2, 2010). We deny
Harrison’s motion for 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