Filed: Nov. 21, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1547 SAMUEL M. JAMES, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:14-cv-00827-REP) Submitted: November 17, 2016 Decided: November 21, 2016 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Samuel M
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1547 SAMUEL M. JAMES, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:14-cv-00827-REP) Submitted: November 17, 2016 Decided: November 21, 2016 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Samuel M...
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1547 SAMUEL M. JAMES, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:14-cv-00827-REP) Submitted: November 17, 2016 Decided: November 21, 2016 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, 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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 dismissing 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. 3:14-cv-00827-REP (E.D. Va. filed Mar. 10 & entered Mar. 11, 2016). We deny James’ motion for appointment of counsel and 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
