Filed: Jun. 11, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1038 ZEBEDEE MILBY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL REGISTRAR, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:17-cv-00590-MHL) Submitted: May 24, 2019 Decided: June 11, 2019 Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Zebedee Milby, Appellant Pro Se.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1038 ZEBEDEE MILBY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL REGISTRAR, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:17-cv-00590-MHL) Submitted: May 24, 2019 Decided: June 11, 2019 Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Zebedee Milby, Appellant Pro Se. ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1038 ZEBEDEE MILBY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL REGISTRAR, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:17-cv-00590-MHL) Submitted: May 24, 2019 Decided: June 11, 2019 Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Zebedee Milby, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Zebedee Milby appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his civil complaint for failing to comply with a court order and denying reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Milby’s motion to remand and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Milby v. Office of the Fed. Registrar, No. 3:17-cv-00590-MHL (E.D. Va. May 31, 2018 & Oct. 12, 2018). 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
