Stephen Earl v. US


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:14-cv-00115-F Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000031061]. [16-1734]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-1734 Doc: 26 Filed: 02/27/2017 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1734 STEPHEN EARL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee, and UNITED STATES V.A.; SLOAN D. GIBSON, Acting Secretary of V.A.; JAMES CRANDELL, VA Employee; DENNIS MCCLAINE, VA Employee; LONNIE HATTON, VA Employee; JOE SOVATOS, VA Employee; E. DOUGLAS BRADSHAW, JR., VA Employee; TISHA BALKNELL, VA Employee, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (5:14-cv-00115-F) Submitted: February 23, 2017 Decided: February 27, 2017 Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Appeal: 16-1734 Doc: 26 Filed: 02/27/2017 Pg: 2 of 3 Cedric R. Perry, PERRY & ASSOCIATES, Rocky Mount, North Carolina, for Appellant. John Stuart Bruce, United States Attorney, G. Norman Acker, III, Kimberly A. Moore, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 Appeal: 16-1734 Doc: 26 Filed: 02/27/2017 Pg: 3 of 3 PER CURIAM: Stephen Earl appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the Federal Tort Claims Act. no reversible error. Government on his action under the We have reviewed the record and find Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Earl v. United States, No. 5:14- cv-00115-F 2016). (E.D.N.C. May 31, 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 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?