Filed: May 31, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-2349 ANTHONY F. WOOD, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. EDUCATIONAL TESTING SERVICE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (2:10-cv-00542-RBS-FBS) Submitted: May 26, 2011 Decided: May 31, 2011 Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony F. Wood, Appellant Pro Se. U
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-2349 ANTHONY F. WOOD, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. EDUCATIONAL TESTING SERVICE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (2:10-cv-00542-RBS-FBS) Submitted: May 26, 2011 Decided: May 31, 2011 Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony F. Wood, Appellant Pro Se. Un..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-2349 ANTHONY F. WOOD, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. EDUCATIONAL TESTING SERVICE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (2:10-cv-00542-RBS-FBS) Submitted: May 26, 2011 Decided: May 31, 2011 Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony F. Wood, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Anthony F. Wood appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action without prejudice. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Wood v. Educ. Testing Serv., No. 2:10-cv-00542-RBS-FBS (E.D. Va. filed Nov. 3, 2011 & entered Nov. 4, 2011). 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
