Gibson v. United States

Fourth Circuit

Gibson v. United States

522 F. App'x 193

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJune 4, 2013

DocketNo. 13-1211

StatusPublished

This text of 522 F. App'x 193 (Gibson v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gibson v. United States, 522 F. App'x 193 (4th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Thor K. Gibson appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. Gibson v. United States, No. 1:12-cv-00067-IMK-JSK (N.D.W.Va. Jan. 23, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials be[194]*194fore this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Thor K. Gibson appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. Gibson v. United States, No. 1:12-cv-00067-IMK-JSK (N.D.W.Va. Jan. 23, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials be[194]*194fore this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

522 F. App'x 193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gibson-v-united-states-ca4-2013.