Filed: Oct. 20, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1941 DANNY JAN SEKOH, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. LINDA STRICKLEN SEKOH; SHANNON POORE, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:10-cv-00251-D) Submitted: October 14, 2010 Decided: October 20, 2010 Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Danny Jan Sekoh, A
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1941 DANNY JAN SEKOH, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. LINDA STRICKLEN SEKOH; SHANNON POORE, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:10-cv-00251-D) Submitted: October 14, 2010 Decided: October 20, 2010 Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Danny Jan Sekoh, Ap..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1941 DANNY JAN SEKOH, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. LINDA STRICKLEN SEKOH; SHANNON POORE, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:10-cv-00251-D) Submitted: October 14, 2010 Decided: October 20, 2010 Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Danny Jan Sekoh, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Danny Jan Sekoh appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Sekoh v. Sekoh, No. 5:10-cv-00251-D (E.D.N.C. July 26, 2010). 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
