Herbert Clark, III v. Patrick Murphy

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:14-cv-00565-FL Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999976667]. Mailed to: appellant. [16-1868]

Appeal: 16-1868

Doc: 12

Filed: 11/29/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1868

HERBERT CLARK, III,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
PATRICK J. MURPHY, Acting Secretary of the Army,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:14-cv-00565-FL)

Submitted:

November 22, 2016

Before DIAZ and
Circuit Judge.

THACKER,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

November 29, 2016

and

DAVIS,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Herbert Clark, III, Appellant Pro Se.
Kimberly Ann Moore,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1868

Doc: 12

Filed: 11/29/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Herbert

Clark,

III,

appeals

the

district

court’s

order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, granting
summary judgment to Defendant, and upholding the final decision
of the Army Board for Corrections of Military Records (“Board”),
which denied Clark’s request to make corrections to his military
records.

Under the Administrative Procedures Act this court’s

review of a Board’s decision is “quite limited” and we may only
set aside the Board’s decision if it is arbitrary, capricious,
or not based on substantial evidence.

Randall v. United States,

95 F.3d 339, 348 (4th Cir. 1996); see Chappell v. Wallace, 462
U.S. 296, 303 (1983).
reversible error.

We have reviewed the record and find no

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated

by the district court.

Clark v. Murphy, No. 5:14-cv-00565-FL

(E.D.N.C. June 2, 2016).

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