Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 5 views

    Sylvester Harding, III v. Eric Shinseki, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Sylvester Harding appealed the district court's dismissal of his 42 USC 1983 complaint under 28 USC 1915A(b) and denial of his Rule 59(e) motion. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's rulings for the reasons stated in the district court's orders dismissing the complaint and denying the motion. The Fourth Circuit found no reversible error.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Sylvester Harding, III v. Eric Shinseki, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    Sylvester Harding appealed the district court's dismissal of his 42 USC 1983 complaint under 28 USC 1915A(b) and denial of his Rule 59(e) motion. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's rulings for the reasons stated in the district court's orders dismissing the complaint and denying the motion. The Fourth Circuit found no reversible error.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2013-05-28 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 12-8150

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Sylvester Harding appealed the district court's dismissal of his 42 USC 1983 complaint under 28 USC 1915A(b) and denial of his Rule 59(e) motion. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's rulings for the reasons stated in the district court's orders dismissing the complaint and denying the motion. The Fourth Circuit found no reversible error.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    5 views2 pages

    Sylvester Harding, III v. Eric Shinseki, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Sylvester Harding appealed the district court's dismissal of his 42 USC 1983 complaint under 28 USC 1915A(b) and denial of his Rule 59(e) motion. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's rulings for the reasons stated in the district court's orders dismissing the complaint and denying the motion. The Fourth Circuit found no reversible error.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 12-8150

    SYLVESTER E. HARDING, III,


    Plaintiff Appellant,
    v.
    ERIC K. SHINSEKI, Secretary Department of Veteran Affairs
    [Agency]; JOHN C. WEAVER, Staff Attorney Department of
    Veteran Affairs; KAREN CLARKSON, Assistant Chief of Human
    Resources; ALLISON BROWN, Police Office Fayetteville Police
    Department; ROBERT HICKS, Assistant District Attorney,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
    James C. Fox, Senior
    District Judge. (5:12-ct-03095-F)

    Submitted:

    May 23, 2013

    Before MOTZ and


    Circuit Judge.

    AGEE,

    Decided:

    Circuit

    Judges,

    and

    May 28, 2013

    HAMILTON,

    Senior

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Sylvester E. Harding, III, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Sylvester

    E.

    Harding,

    III,

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts orders dismissing his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2006) complaint


    under 28 U.S.C. 1915A(b) (2006) and denying his Fed. R. Civ.
    P.

    59(e)

    motion.

    reversible error.
    by

    the

    We

    have

    reviewed

    the

    record

    and

    find

    no

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated


    Shinseki,

    No.

    5:12-ct-03095-F (E.D.N.C. Oct. 30, 2012; Dec. 11, 2013).

    We

    dispense

    district

    with

    contentions

    are

    court.

    oral

    See

    argument

    adequately

    Harding

    because

    presented

    in

    v.

    the
    the

    facts

    and

    legal

    materials

    before

    this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like