Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
00-1144•Patricia A. Gavin v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 4th Cir. 1986 . 2 PER CURIAM: Patricia A. Gavin…
00-1144Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit02.06.2000
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-1144
PATRICIA A. GAVIN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
DEPARTMENT OF THE U.S. AIR FORCE; UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA; DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS; JOHN DOE,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge.
(CA-99-1021-A)
Submitted: May 25, 2000 Decided: June 2, 2000
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Patricia A. Gavin, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Parker, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
* Although the district court's order is marked as "filed" on
December 3, 1999, the district court's record shows that it was
entered on the docket sheet on December 6, 1999. Pursuant to Rules
58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the
date that the judgment or order was entered on the docket sheet
that we take as the effective date of the district court's
decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir.
1986).
2
PER CURIAM:
Patricia A. Gavin appeals the district court's order granting
Defendants' motion to dismiss her civil complaint under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(1), (6). Because Gavin failed to challenge the bases
for the district court's rulings in her informal brief, she has not
preserved any issue for our review. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).
Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See
Gavin v. Department of the U.S. Air Force, No. CA-99-1021-A (E.D.
Va. Dec. 6, 1999). * We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma-
terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.