Filed: Oct. 19, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1932 BRIEN O. HILL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SJV, LLC, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (1:16-cv-00193-GBL-TCB) Submitted: October 17, 2017 Decided: October 19, 2017 Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Brien O. Hill, App
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1932 BRIEN O. HILL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SJV, LLC, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (1:16-cv-00193-GBL-TCB) Submitted: October 17, 2017 Decided: October 19, 2017 Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Brien O. Hill, Appe..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1932 BRIEN O. HILL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SJV, LLC, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (1:16-cv-00193-GBL-TCB) Submitted: October 17, 2017 Decided: October 19, 2017 Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Brien O. Hill, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Maxwell Volin, VOLIN EMPLOYMENT LAW, PLLC, Falls Church, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Brien O. Hill appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint as barred by res judicata. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Hill v. SJV, LLC, No. 1:16-cv- 00193-GBL-TCB (E.D. Va. filed July 28, 2017 & entered July 31, 2017). 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
