Filed: Nov. 20, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1707 SAMUEL M. JAMES, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant – Appellee, and ERIK SHINSEKI, Secretary, United States Veterans Affairs, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:13-cv-00861-REP) Submitted: November 18, 2014 Decided: November 20, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Ju
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1707 SAMUEL M. JAMES, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant – Appellee, and ERIK SHINSEKI, Secretary, United States Veterans Affairs, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:13-cv-00861-REP) Submitted: November 18, 2014 Decided: November 20, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Jud..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1707 SAMUEL M. JAMES, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant – Appellee, and ERIK SHINSEKI, Secretary, United States Veterans Affairs, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:13-cv-00861-REP) Submitted: November 18, 2014 Decided: November 20, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Samuel M. James, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Holland Hambrick, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Samuel M. James appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss his complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. James v. United States, No. 3:13-cv-00861-REP (E.D. Va. May 23, 2014). 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
