Court Opinion

ID: 9365022
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-20 21:00:49.692332+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:42.604059
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2008      Doc: 6        Filed: 01/19/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-2008

        FRANK LATHAM HINTON,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        ERNESTO LUCIANO-PEREZ, M.D.; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
        DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH PROFESSIONS; INVESTIGATOR FOR THE
        DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH PROFESSIONS,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Senior District Judge. (2:22-cv-00150-RBS-LRL)

        Submitted: January 17, 2023                                       Decided: January 19, 2023

        Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Frank Latham Hinton, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2008      Doc: 6         Filed: 01/19/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Frank Latham Hinton appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil

        complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) and denying

        his request that the district judge recuse herself. We have reviewed the record and find no

        reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Hinton

        v. Luciano-Perez, No. 2:22-cv-00150-RBS-LRL (E.D. Va. Sept. 9, 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