The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
09-1831•Nathaniel J. Fauber v. Virginia Army National Guard
09-1831Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitSep 14, 2009
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-1831
NATHANIEL J. FAUBER,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
VIRGINIA ARMY NATIONAL GUARD; STATE OF VIRGINIA; UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA; SALEM VETERANS HOSPITAL,
Defendants – Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. James C. Turk, Senior
District Judge. (5:08-cv-00068-jct)
Submitted: September 10, 2009 Decided: September 14, 2009
Before KING, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nathanial J. Fauber, Appellant Pro Se. Christy Monolo, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, Rick A.
Mountcastle, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke,
Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Nathaniel J. Fauber appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion to reconsider the district court’s previous
order dismissing his civil complaint. We have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for
the reasons stated by the district court. Fauber v. Virginia
Army Nat’l Guard, No. 5:08-cv-00068-jct (W.D. Va. filed June 30,
2009; entered July 2, 2009).∗ We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
∗ To the extent Fauber seeks to appeal the district court’s
order of April 13, 2009 granting the Appellees’ respective
motions to dismiss and quash, the appeal is clearly untimely.
See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1).
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.