Case Name: Jackie R. PARKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. T.D. BLANTON, Lifting and Handling Director, Code 700, Norfolk Naval Shipyard; J.L. Anderson, Security Services Branch, Code 1121.3, Security Office, Norfolk Naval Shipyard; V. Barnes, Director, Department of Navy, Central Adjudication Facility; Mathew Malone, Department of Defense, Defense Legal Services Agency, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-11-14
Citations: 80 F. App'x 856
Docket Number: No. 03-2077
Parties: Jackie R. PARKER, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. T.D. BLANTON, Lifting and Handling Director, Code 700, Norfolk Naval Shipyard; J.L. Anderson, Security Services Branch, Code 1121.3, Security Office, Norfolk Naval Shipyard; V. Barnes, Director, Department of Navy, Central Adjudication Facility; Ma thew Malone, Department of Defense, Defense Legal Services Agency, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 80
Pages: 856–857

Head Matter:
Jackie R. PARKER, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. T.D. BLANTON, Lifting and Handling Director, Code 700, Norfolk Naval Shipyard; J.L. Anderson, Security Services Branch, Code 1121.3, Security Office, Norfolk Naval Shipyard; V. Barnes, Director, Department of Navy, Central Adjudication Facility; Ma thew Malone, Department of Defense, Defense Legal Services Agency, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 03-2077.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 5, 2003.
Decided Nov. 14, 2003.
Jackie R. Parker, pro se.
Lawrence Richard Leonard, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
Jackie R. Parker appeals the district court's order granting the Government's motion for summary judgment in his civil action concerning revocation of his security clearance. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Parker v. Blanton, No. CA-03-133-2 (E.D. Va. June 30, 2003). 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