Filed: Feb. 25, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2368 DEREK N. JARVIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. THE PAPER SOURCE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:12-cv-01454-CMH-TRJ) Submitted: February 20, 2014 Decided: February 25, 2014 Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Derek N. Jarvis, Appellant P
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2368 DEREK N. JARVIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. THE PAPER SOURCE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:12-cv-01454-CMH-TRJ) Submitted: February 20, 2014 Decided: February 25, 2014 Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Derek N. Jarvis, Appellant Pr..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-2368
DEREK N. JARVIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
THE PAPER SOURCE,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:12-cv-01454-CMH-TRJ)
Submitted: February 20, 2014 Decided: February 25, 2014
Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Derek N. Jarvis, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Joseph Flaherty, Joon
Hwang, LITTLER MENDELSON PC, McLean, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Derek N. Jarvis appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his civil complaint alleging employment
discrimination because he failed to serve Defendant within 120
days of filing his complaint, in violation of Fed. R. Civ. P.
4(m). We find no abuse of discretion by the district court for
dismissing the complaint under Rule 4(m). See Shao v. Link
Cargo (Taiwan) Ltd.,
986 F.2d 700, 708 (4th Cir. 1993)
(providing review standard). Finding no reversible error, we
affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Jarvis v.
The Paper Source, No. 1:12-cv-01454-CMH-TRJ (E.D. Va. Oct. 28,
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
2