Pinanko v. Napolitano

Fourth Circuit

Pinanko v. Napolitano

451 F. App'x 279

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided October 21, 2011·No. No. 11-1169·Published

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

George Osam Pinanko and Stella Opoku appeal the district court’s order dismissing with prejudice their Petition for Writ of Mandamus or for Review of Agency Action under the Administrative Procedure Act. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Pinanko v. Napolitano, No. 1:10-cv-01138-LMB-TRJ (E.D.Va. Jan. 7, 2011). 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.

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

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

George Osam Pinanko and Stella Opoku appeal the district court’s order dismissing with prejudice their Petition for Writ of Mandamus or for Review of Agency Action under the Administrative Procedure Act. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Pinanko v. Napolitano, No. 1:10-cv-01138-LMB-TRJ (E.D.Va. Jan. 7, 2011). 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.

Pinanko v. Napolitano, 451 F. App'x 279 (4th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

451 F. App'x 279 (Pinanko v. Napolitano) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.