Filed: May 04, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1175 TODD M. JACK, Resident of Virginia, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. STATE (WEST VIRGINIA); JO ANN OVERINGTON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. John Preston Bailey, Chief District Judge. (2:10-cv-00063-JPB-JSK) Submitted: April 20, 2011 Decided: May 4, 2011 Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. A
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1175 TODD M. JACK, Resident of Virginia, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. STATE (WEST VIRGINIA); JO ANN OVERINGTON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. John Preston Bailey, Chief District Judge. (2:10-cv-00063-JPB-JSK) Submitted: April 20, 2011 Decided: May 4, 2011 Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Af..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1175 TODD M. JACK, Resident of Virginia, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. STATE (WEST VIRGINIA); JO ANN OVERINGTON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. John Preston Bailey, Chief District Judge. (2:10-cv-00063-JPB-JSK) Submitted: April 20, 2011 Decided: May 4, 2011 Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Todd M. Jack, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Todd M. Jack appeals the district court’s order dismissing this action on the grounds of Eleventh Amendment and judicial immunity. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Jack v. West Virginia, No. 2:10-cv- 00063-JPB-JSK (N.D. W. Va. Jan. 28, 2011). We deny the motions to seal the informal brief and for preparation of a transcript at government expense and 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
