Court Opinion

ID: 9956805
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-02 21:01:07.324321+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:52.608757
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-2138      Doc: 13         Filed: 04/01/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-2138

        ANTHONY WONG,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        HONORABLE CHRISTINE WORMUTH, Secretary, Department of the Army;
        DARRYL W. MCCOY, Director, US Army Garrision, Italy Fanance Office; MARK
        JACKSON, Director, US Army Garrision, Italy Fanance Office,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. Rossie David Alston, Jr., District Judge. (1:23-cv-00485-RDA-LRV)

        Submitted: March 28, 2024                                         Decided: April 1, 2024

        Before KING and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Anthony Wong, Appellant Pro Se. Hugham Chan, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
        ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-2138      Doc: 13        Filed: 04/01/2024     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Anthony Wong appeals the district court’s order denying Wong’s “Motion to

        Reopen Case” and “Request to Upload Settlement Agreement and Release to CM/ECF.”

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

        district court’s order. Wong v. Wormuth, No. 1:23-cv-00485-RDA-LRV (E.D. Va. filed

        Oct. 4, 2023 & entered Oct. 5, 2023). We deny Wong’s motions to impose sanctions and

        for the appointment of counsel. 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