Filed: Mar. 23, 2020
Latest Update: Mar. 23, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-2050 ROBERT E. KINNETT, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SOTERA DEFENSE SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Michael F. Urbanski, Chief District Judge. (5:18-cv-00110-MFU-JCH) Submitted: February 7, 2020 Decided: March 23, 2020 Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert E
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-2050 ROBERT E. KINNETT, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SOTERA DEFENSE SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Michael F. Urbanski, Chief District Judge. (5:18-cv-00110-MFU-JCH) Submitted: February 7, 2020 Decided: March 23, 2020 Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert E...
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-2050 ROBERT E. KINNETT, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SOTERA DEFENSE SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Michael F. Urbanski, Chief District Judge. (5:18-cv-00110-MFU-JCH) Submitted: February 7, 2020 Decided: March 23, 2020 Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert E. Kinnett, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Robert E. Kinnett appeals the district court’s order granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Kinnett v. Sotera Defense Solutions, Inc., No. 5:18-cv-00110-MFU-JCH (W.D. Va. Aug. 26, 2019). We deny Kinnett’s motion to amend the caption. 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
