Filed: Apr. 22, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1027 RICHARD GRAVELY, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (2:12-cv-05444) Submitted: April 18, 2013 Decided: April 22, 2013 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard Gravely, App
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1027 RICHARD GRAVELY, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (2:12-cv-05444) Submitted: April 18, 2013 Decided: April 22, 2013 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard Gravely, Appe..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1027 RICHARD GRAVELY, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (2:12-cv-05444) Submitted: April 18, 2013 Decided: April 22, 2013 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard Gravely, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Richard Gravely appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Gravely v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, No. 2:12-cv-05444 (S.D.W. Va. Dec. 26, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
