Filed: Jan. 27, 2020
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-2020 TERRY GOODEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. U.S. NAVY/U.S. MARINE CORPS; ROBERT B. NELLER, U.S. Marine Corps, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Senior District Judge. (2:19-cv-00188-RBS-RJK) Submitted: January 23, 2020 Decided: January 27, 2020 Before WYNN, DIAZ, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-2020 TERRY GOODEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. U.S. NAVY/U.S. MARINE CORPS; ROBERT B. NELLER, U.S. Marine Corps, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Senior District Judge. (2:19-cv-00188-RBS-RJK) Submitted: January 23, 2020 Decided: January 27, 2020 Before WYNN, DIAZ, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished p..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-2020
TERRY GOODEN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
U.S. NAVY/U.S. MARINE CORPS; ROBERT B. NELLER, U.S. Marine Corps,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Senior District Judge. (2:19-cv-00188-RBS-RJK)
Submitted: January 23, 2020 Decided: January 27, 2020
Before WYNN, DIAZ, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Terry Gooden, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Terry Gooden appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action with
prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (2018). We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.
Gooden v. U. S. Navy/U.S. Marine Corps, No. 2:19-cv-00188-RBS-RJK (E.D. Va. July 24,
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