Filed: Jun. 23, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1120 JONAH C. DAVIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. RAY MABUS, Secretary of Navy, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:12-cv-00467-MSD-TEM) Submitted: June 19, 2014 Decided: June 23, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jonah C. Davis, Appellant Pro Se. M
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1120 JONAH C. DAVIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. RAY MABUS, Secretary of Navy, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:12-cv-00467-MSD-TEM) Submitted: June 19, 2014 Decided: June 23, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jonah C. Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Ma..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1120 JONAH C. DAVIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. RAY MABUS, Secretary of Navy, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:12-cv-00467-MSD-TEM) Submitted: June 19, 2014 Decided: June 23, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jonah C. Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Anthony Exley, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jonah C. Davis appeals the district court’s order dismissing the complaint Davis filed concerning his civilian employment by the United States Navy. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Davis v. Mabus, No. 2:12-cv-00467-MSD-TEM (E.D. Va. Sept. 26, 2013; Dec. 6, 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
