Opinion · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

RICHARDSON v. GEREN, 370 Fed.Appx. 385 (4th Cir. 2010)

Johnny D. RICHARDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Pete GEREN, Sec’y ofthe Army, Dep’t of the Army, Defendant-Appellee., 370 F. App'x 385 (4th Cir. 2010)

Type: Opinion
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 2010-03-19
Topic: general

RICHARDSON v. GEREN, 370 Fed.Appx. 385 (4th Cir. 2010) Johnny D. RICHARDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Pete GEREN, Secretary ofthe Army, Department of the Army, Defendant-Appellee. No. 09-2201.United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.Submitted: March 16, 2010.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed RICHARDSON v. GEREN, 370 Fed.Appx. 385 (4th Cir. 2010). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

RICHARDSON v. GEREN,370 Fed.Appx. 385(4th Cir. 2010)

Johnny D. RICHARDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Pete GEREN, Secretary of

the Army, Department of the Army, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 09-2201.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 16, 2010.

Decided: March 19, 2010.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:08-cv-03121-CCB).

Johnny D. Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. Alex Gordon, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.Page 386

PER CURIAM:

Johnny D. Richardson appeals the district court's order granting the Appellee's motion to dismiss Richardson's complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.Richardson v. Geren, No. 1:08-cv-03121-CCB (D.Md. May 8, 2009). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.AFFIRMED.

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] ↩