Case Name: Raymond S. BURNS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant-Appellee, and Commonwealth of Virginia; Northern Virginia Transportation Commission; Northern Virginia Transportation Authority; Virginia Department of Transportation, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-01-07
Citations: 503 F. App'x 214
Docket Number: No. 12-1903
Parties: Raymond S. BURNS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant-Appellee, and Commonwealth of Virginia; Northern Virginia Transportation Commission; Northern Virginia Transportation Authority; Virginia Department of Transportation, Defendants.
Judges: Before AGEE, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 503
Pages: 214–215

Head Matter:
Raymond S. BURNS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant-Appellee, and Commonwealth of Virginia; Northern Virginia Transportation Commission; Northern Virginia Transportation Authority; Virginia Department of Transportation, Defendants.
No. 12-1903.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 21, 2012.
Decided: Jan. 7, 2013.
Kevin M. Leach, Turbitt, O’Herron & Leach, PLLC, Burke, Virginia, for Appellant. Nicholas S. Nunzio, Jr., Associate General Counsel, Carol B. O’Keeffe, General Counsel, Gerard J. Stief, Senior Associate General Counsel, Washington, DC, for Appellee.
Before AGEE, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Raymond S. Burns, Jr. appeals the district court's order granting the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority's motion for summary judgment on his negligence complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Burns v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth., No. 1:12-cv-00123-CMH-TRJ (E.D.Va. July 13, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.