Filed: Jan. 18, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-2117 MICHAEL D. DAROCHA, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. FIRST CITIZENS BANK, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief District Judge. (7:10-cv-00367-gec) Submitted: January 13, 2011 Decided: January 18, 2011 Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael D. Darocha, Appellant Pro Se.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-2117 MICHAEL D. DAROCHA, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. FIRST CITIZENS BANK, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief District Judge. (7:10-cv-00367-gec) Submitted: January 13, 2011 Decided: January 18, 2011 Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael D. Darocha, Appellant Pro Se. ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-2117 MICHAEL D. DAROCHA, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. FIRST CITIZENS BANK, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief District Judge. (7:10-cv-00367-gec) Submitted: January 13, 2011 Decided: January 18, 2011 Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael D. Darocha, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael D. Darocha appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his civil complaint against First Citizens Bank. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Darocha v. First Citizens Bank, No. 7:10-cv-00367-gec (W.D. Va. filed Aug. 18, 2010, entered Aug. Aug. 19, 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
