Court Opinion

ID: 9404389
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-22 21:03:29.217174+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:13.525499
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6108      Doc: 9        Filed: 06/21/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6108

        MARVIN EDUARDO LUNA GOMEZ,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        VIRGINIA EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION, EBT/Employment Benefits; ELLEN
        MARIE HESS, Commissioner of the Virginia Employment Commission; TAMMY
        P. WINSTON, Management Analyst for the Virginia Employment Commission;
        DIANA Y. BROWN, Management Analyst for the Virginia Employment
        Commission; DEPUTY, # VEC 673,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:20-cv-00750-MHL-MRC)

        Submitted: June 15, 2023                                            Decided: June 21, 2023

        Before DIAZ, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Marvin Eduardo Luna Gomez, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6108      Doc: 9        Filed: 06/21/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Marvin Eduardo Luna Gomez appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42

        U.S.C. § 1983 action as time barred. We have reviewed the record and discern no

        reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Gomez v. Va. Emp.

        Comm’n, No. 3:20-cv-00750-MHL-MRC (E.D. Va. Jan. 4, 2023). 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