Filed: Jul. 27, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1509 TOD JACK, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. JESSE PANUCCIO, Executive Director, Reemployment Assistance Program, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:15-cv-00102-MSD-LRL) Submitted: July 23, 2015 Decided: July 27, 2015 Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpubli
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1509 TOD JACK, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. JESSE PANUCCIO, Executive Director, Reemployment Assistance Program, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:15-cv-00102-MSD-LRL) Submitted: July 23, 2015 Decided: July 27, 2015 Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublis..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1509
TOD JACK,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
JESSE PANUCCIO, Executive Director, Reemployment Assistance
Program,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge.
(2:15-cv-00102-MSD-LRL)
Submitted: July 23, 2015 Decided: July 27, 2015
Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tod Jack, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tod Jack appeals the district court’s order dismissing under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (2012) his complaint. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Jack v.
Panuccio, 2:15-cv-00102-MSD-LRL (E.D. Va. filed on Apr. 16 &
entered on Apr. 17, 2015). 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