Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Gary Kirchhoff v. United States Government, 19-1980 (2019)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 19-1980 Visitors: 8
Filed: Dec. 19, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1980 GARY THOMAS KIRCHHOFF, I, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT; DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY; WALTER REED NATIONAL MILITARY MEDICAL CENTER; PAUL MONGAN, M.D., Ret. Col.; WILLIAM S. ARIMONY, Esq.; LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM S. ARIMONY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (7:18-cv-00489-GEC) Submitted: D
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1980 GARY THOMAS KIRCHHOFF, I, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT; DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY; WALTER REED NATIONAL MILITARY MEDICAL CENTER; PAUL MONGAN, M.D., Ret. Col.; WILLIAM S. ARIMONY, Esq.; LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM S. ARIMONY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (7:18-cv-00489-GEC) Submitted: December 17, 2019 Decided: December 19, 2019 Before KING, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary Thomas Kirchhoff, I, Appellant Pro Se. Justin Michael Lugar, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia; Phillip Verne Anderson, Andrew Shane Gerrish, FRITH, ANDERSON & PEAKE, PC, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Gary Thomas Kirchhoff, I, appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his civil action and denying Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) relief. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Kirchhoff v. U.S. Gov’t, No. 7:18-cv-00489-GEC (W.D. Va. Apr. 30 & Aug. 12, 2019). 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
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer