Court Opinion

ID: 9881769
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-03 21:00:42.758595+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:17.803646
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2006      Doc: 11         Filed: 10/02/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-2006

        TACITUS ANASTACIUS HALL,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER COMPANY; VCU - U-HALL, Opta Parma,
        Griffals College; Storage Units, Midical Services; DMV; WAWA & GREAT
        DEALS TOWING/BOX 6065; ROZIER INVESTMENTS GREAT DEALS
        TOWING; CITY OF RICHMOND; HENRICO COUNTY; PRINCE GEORGE
        COUNTY; SURRY COUNTY; SUSSEX COUNTY; BETTER HOUSING
        CONDITION; LEBENON VILLAGE, a/k/a Ford, Chevrolet, ect,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Richmond. David J. Novak, District Judge. (3:22-cv-00457-DJN)

        Submitted: September 28, 2023                                     Decided: October 2, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Tacitus Anastacius Hall, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2006      Doc: 11         Filed: 10/02/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Tacitus Anastacius Hall appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint

        for failure to comply with a court order. We have reviewed the record and find no

        reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Hall v. VEPCO, No.

        3:22-cv-00457-DJN (E.D. Va. Aug. 22, 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