Filed: Aug. 27, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-6722 CASSIE C. CRISANO, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ANTHONY JAMES HOPKINS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:19-cv-00489-CMH-MSN) Submitted: August 22, 2019 Decided: August 27, 2019 Before KING and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam op
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-6722 CASSIE C. CRISANO, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ANTHONY JAMES HOPKINS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:19-cv-00489-CMH-MSN) Submitted: August 22, 2019 Decided: August 27, 2019 Before KING and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opi..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-6722
CASSIE C. CRISANO,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ANTHONY JAMES HOPKINS,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:19-cv-00489-CMH-MSN)
Submitted: August 22, 2019 Decided: August 27, 2019
Before KING and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Cassie C. Crisano, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Cassie C. Crisano appeals the district court’s order dismissing her 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 (2012) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) for failure to state a claim. We
have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. Crisano v. Hopkins, No. 1:19-cv-00489-CMH-MSN
(E.D. Va. May 2, 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