Reaves v. Shinseki

Fourth Circuit

Reaves v. Shinseki

421 F. App'x 291

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided April 6, 2011·No. No. 10-7606·Published

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Frank Reaves appeals the district court’s order dismissing his petition for a writ of mandamus. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Reaves v. Shinseki, No. 2:10-cv-00495-HCM-TEM (E.D.Va. Oct. 8, 2010). We deny Reaves’ motion for appointment of counsel and 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Frank Reaves appeals the district court’s order dismissing his petition for a writ of mandamus. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Reaves v. Shinseki, No. 2:10-cv-00495-HCM-TEM (E.D.Va. Oct. 8, 2010). We deny Reaves’ motion for appointment of counsel and 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.

Reaves v. Shinseki, 421 F. App'x 291 (4th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

421 F. App'x 291 (Reaves v. Shinseki) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.