Yuri J. Stoyanov v. CHARLES BEHRLE, Individually

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1632
YURI J. STOYANOV,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CHARLES BEHRLE, Individually and in his Official Capacity as
the Head of the Carderock Division; GARY M. JEBSEN,
Individually and his Official Capacity as the Head of Code
70; KEVIN M. WILSON, Individually and in his Official
Capacity as the Head of Code 74; BRUCE CROCK, Individually
and in his Official Capacity as the Head of Code 743; DAVID
CARON, Individually as in his Official Capacity as Assistant
Counsel Code 39; RAY MABUS, Secretary of the Navy; JOSEPH
VIGNALI, Individually and in his Official Capacity as the
Head of Code 7207; CIRO MINOPOLI, Individually and in his
Official Capacity as the Head of Code 75; ROGER FORD,
Individually and in his Official Capacity as the Head of
Code 7014; GARTH JENSEN, Individually and in his Official
Capacity as the Deputy Head of Code 70; DONALD CLARK,
Individually and in his Official Capacity as the Head of
Code 713; SUZANNE D. FRIEDMAN, Individually and in her
Official Capacity as Acting Head of Code 30; CHARLES
GIACCHI, Individually and in his Official Capacity as the
Technical Director of NSWC; ARCHER MACY, Individually and in
his Official Capacity as the Head of Naval Surface Warfare
Center,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
DONALD C. WINTER, Secretary of the Navy,
Defendant.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District
Judge. (1:07-cv-01953-DKC)
Submitted: September 24, 2013 Decided: September 26, 2013
Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Yuri J. Stoyanov, Appellant Pro Se. John Walter Sippel, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Yuri J. Stoyanov appeals the district court’s order
granting Defendants’ summary judgment motion on his several
federal and state law claims against them, and its order denying
his motion for reconsideration and his self-styled “Motion to
Investigate Fraud in 3/15/13 Order and Memorandum Opinion and
Delay in Sending Until 2 May 2013[.]” We have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the
district court’s orders. See Stoyanov v. Behrle, No. 1:07-cv-
01953-DKC (D. Md. March 15, 2013; May 15, 2013). 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 of 3 --