Subh v. Department of the Army
This text of Subh v. Department of the Army (Subh v. Department of the Army) 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.
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-2399
MAJED SUBH,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, U.S. Army Records Managements & Declassification Agency, DA Freedom of Info and Privacy Office,
Defendant – Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:10-cv-00433-LMB-TRJ)
Submitted: March 15, 2011 Decided: March 17, 2011
Before MOTZ and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Majed Subh, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin J. Mikolashek, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Majed Subh appeals the district court’s order granting
summary judgment to the Defendant in his civil action. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See
Subh v. Department of the Army, No. 1:10-cv-00433-LMB-TRJ (E.D.
Va. Nov. 30, 2010). 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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Subh v. Department of the Army, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/subh-v-department-of-the-army-ca4-2011.