Filed: Dec. 24, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1974 RONALD HUGH HUTTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:13-cv-00417-FL) Submitted: December 19, 2014 Decided: December 24, 2014 Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald H
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1974 RONALD HUGH HUTTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:13-cv-00417-FL) Submitted: December 19, 2014 Decided: December 24, 2014 Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald Hu..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1974
RONALD HUGH HUTTON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:13-cv-00417-FL)
Submitted: December 19, 2014 Decided: December 24, 2014
Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald Hugh Hutton, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ronald Hugh Hutton appeals the district court’s order
denying his post-judgment motion for a trial hearing. We have
reviewed the record and Hutton’s informal brief on appeal, and
we conclude that this appeal is frivolous. See Neitzke v.
Williams,
490 U.S. 319, 325, 327 (1989). Accordingly, we
dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (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.
DISMISSED
2