Case Name: CHONG SU YI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FOX VALLEY MOTORS; Lotus of America; Department of Motor Vehicles, of Maryland; Secretary of State, Department of Motor Vehicles of Illinois; National Driver Registry, NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration); State of Illinois; State of Maryland, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-03-31
Citations: 564 F. App'x 13
Docket Number: No. 13-2315
Parties: CHONG SU YI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FOX VALLEY MOTORS; Lotus of America; Department of Motor Vehicles, of Maryland; Secretary of State, Department of Motor Vehicles of Illinois; National Driver Registry, NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration); State of Illinois; State of Maryland, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before MOTZ, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 564
Pages: 13–13

Head Matter:
CHONG SU YI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FOX VALLEY MOTORS; Lotus of America; Department of Motor Vehicles, of Maryland; Secretary of State, Department of Motor Vehicles of Illinois; National Driver Registry, NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration); State of Illinois; State of Maryland, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-2315.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 27, 2014.
Decided: March 31, 2014.
Chong Su Yi, Appellant Pro Se.
Before MOTZ, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Chong Su Yi appeals the district court's order dismissing his civil complaint without prejudice. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. Yi v. Fox Valley Motors, No. 8:13-cv-01064-PWG (D.Md. Aug. 20, 2013). We deny Yi's motion to amend the caption. 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.
DISMISSED.