Court Opinion

ID: 9838598
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-06 21:00:30.914759+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:32.967003
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6568      Doc: 22         Filed: 09/05/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-6568

        JAMES R. HEUSS, II,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        ELIZABETH A. HILL, Executive Director; CARLOS DEL TORO, Secretary of
        the Navy,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:21-cv-00662-LMB-JFA)

        Submitted: June 9, 2023                                      Decided: September 5, 2023

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

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        James R. Heuss, II, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew James Mezger, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
        STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6568      Doc: 22        Filed: 09/05/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              James R. Heuss, II, appeals the district court’s order awarding summary judgment

        to the defendants on his claims under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.

        §§ 701-706, and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. We have reviewed the

        record and discern no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order.

        Heuss v. Hill, 1:21-cv-00662-LMB-JFA (E.D. Va. Feb. 28, 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