Court Opinion

ID: 9895015
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-03 21:00:41.001994+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:58.342990
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1899      Doc: 12         Filed: 11/02/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-1899

        OSBERT CHIBUEZE OKEBATA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; LLOYD J. AUSTIN, III, Secretary of Defense;
        CARL BOZEMAN,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Richmond. David J. Novak, District Judge. (3:22-cv-00050-DJN)

        Submitted: October 31, 2023                                  Decided: November 2, 2023

        Before HARRIS and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Osbert Chibueze Okebata, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Holland Hambrick, Assistant
        United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond,
        Virginia, for Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1899      Doc: 12         Filed: 11/02/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Osbert Chibueze Okebata appeals the district court’s orders granting Defendants’

        motion to dismiss Okebata’s employment discrimination complaint and denying

        reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

        we affirm the district court’s orders. Okebata v. Dep’t of Def., No. 3:22-cv-00050-DJN

        (E.D. Va. July 29, 2022; Aug. 26, 2022). 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

                                                    2