Court Opinion

ID: 9369117
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-07 21:01:49.258929+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:13.042425
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1485      Doc: 29         Filed: 02/06/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-1485

        SEAN SHALLOW,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        NATION ACTION NETWORK; UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL;
        MAPLE BAY TOWNHOUSE; PEMBROKE TOWN CENTER APARTMENT;
        SYLVIA MARLENE SHALLOW; CSL PLASMA,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:22-cv-00048-AWA-LRL)

        Submitted: January 19, 2023                                       Decided: February 6, 2023

        Before WYNN and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Sean Shallow, Appellant Pro Se. John William Palenski, WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ
        EDELMAN & DICKER LLP, McLean, Virginia; Alexander Paul Berg, Yvette Vanessa
        Gatling, LITTLER MENDELSON PC, Tysons Corner, Virginia, for Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1485      Doc: 29         Filed: 02/06/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Sean Shallow appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil complaint as

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

        affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Shallow v. Nation Action Network, No.

        2:22-cv-00048-AWA-LRL (E.D. Va. Apr. 21, 2022). We grant the motions to affirm

        appeal and deny the motions for initial hearing en banc, to appoint counsel, to dismiss

        appeal, and to strike supplemental informal brief. 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