Filed: May 11, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-2158 ERA L. CARTER, as Executor and Personal Representative of the Estate of Floyd C. Carter, Jr., Deceased, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (4:13-cv-00112-MSD-TEM) Submitted: April 29, 2015 Decided: May 11, 2015 Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-2158 ERA L. CARTER, as Executor and Personal Representative of the Estate of Floyd C. Carter, Jr., Deceased, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (4:13-cv-00112-MSD-TEM) Submitted: April 29, 2015 Decided: May 11, 2015 Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-2158
ERA L. CARTER, as Executor and Personal Representative of
the Estate of Floyd C. Carter, Jr., Deceased,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Mark S. Davis, District
Judge. (4:13-cv-00112-MSD-TEM)
Submitted: April 29, 2015 Decided: May 11, 2015
Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert T. Hall, Samantha Karyn Sledd, HALL & SETHI, PLC, Reston,
Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J. Boente, United States
Attorney, Kent P. Porter, Virginia VanValkenburg, Assistant
United States Attorneys, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Era L. Carter appeals the district court’s order entering
judgment in favor of Appellee on Carter’s claim for negligence
under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-2680
(2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. See Carter v. United States, No. 4:13-cv-112
(E.D. Va. Aug. 25, 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