DeMark Dixon v. Tom Ramirez

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [998941529-2] Originating case number: 2:12-cv-00137-RAJ-TEM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999041917]. Mailed to: Dixon. [12-2144]

Appeal: 12-2144

Doc: 13

Filed: 02/12/2013

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-2144

DEMARK DIXON,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
MR. TOM RAMIREZ, US Probation Officer, acting in his own
individual capacity, but under color of Federal Authority;
HALLS AUTOMOTIVE, LLC,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (2:12-cv-00137-RAJ-TEM)

Submitted:

January 14, 2013

Decided:

February 12, 2013

Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

DeMark Dixon, Appellant Pro Se. Virginia Lynn Van Valkenburg,
Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia; Randall
Clair Lenhart, Jr., KALBAUGH, PFUND & MESSERSMITH, PC, Norfolk,
Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-2144

Doc: 13

Filed: 02/12/2013

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
DeMark
dismissing

his

Dixon

appeals

complaint

for

the
failing

denying his Rule 60(b) motion.
find

no

reversible

error.

district
to

court’s

state

a

orders

claim

and

We have reviewed the record and
Accordingly,

reasons stated by the district court.

we

affirm

for

the

Dixon v. Ramirez, No.

2:12-cv-00137-RAJ-TEM (E.D. Va. July 18, 2012; Oct. 1, 2012).
We deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

We dispense with

legal

contentions

are

before

this

and

court

argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

2