Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Paul Yongo v. John McHugh, 13-1792 (2013)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 13-1792 Visitors: 28
Filed: Oct. 01, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1792 PAUL COLLINS YONGO, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. THE HONORABLE JOHN MCHUGH, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Army; DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, Financial Management Service; J. HORNE, in his official capacity as a military pay technician; DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants - Appellees, and DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY; THE HONORABLE ROBERT GATES; DEFENSE ACCOUNTING & FINANCIAL SERVICES, Defen
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1792 PAUL COLLINS YONGO, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. THE HONORABLE JOHN MCHUGH, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Army; DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, Financial Management Service; J. HORNE, in his official capacity as a military pay technician; DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants - Appellees, and DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY; THE HONORABLE ROBERT GATES; DEFENSE ACCOUNTING & FINANCIAL SERVICES, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (5:10-cv-00220-F) Submitted: September 24, 2013 Decided: October 1, 2013 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Paul Collins Yongo, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew Fesak, Assistant United States Attorney, Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Paul Collins Yongo appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Yongo v. McHugh, No. 5:10-cv-00220-F (E.D.N.C. May 23, 2013). 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 3
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer