Filed: Jun. 25, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-6678 BOBBY M. NICHOLSON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. AIR FORCE D.O.C./I.I.C., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District Judge. (1:19-cv-00398-LO-MSN) Submitted: June 20, 2019 Decided: June 25, 2019 Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bobby Maurice Nicholson, J
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-6678 BOBBY M. NICHOLSON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. AIR FORCE D.O.C./I.I.C., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District Judge. (1:19-cv-00398-LO-MSN) Submitted: June 20, 2019 Decided: June 25, 2019 Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bobby Maurice Nicholson, Jr..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-6678
BOBBY M. NICHOLSON, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
AIR FORCE D.O.C./I.I.C.,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District Judge. (1:19-cv-00398-LO-MSN)
Submitted: June 20, 2019 Decided: June 25, 2019
Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bobby Maurice Nicholson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Bobby M. Nicholson, Jr., appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil
complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) (2012). We have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. Nicholson v. Air Force D.O.C./I.I.C., No. 1:19-cv-00398-LO-MSN (E.D.
Va. filed Apr. 15 & entered Apr. 16, 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