Tacitus Hall v. Timothy Anderson ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                                    UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 20-1786
    TACITUS ANASTACIUS HALL, a/k/a Tazz Hall,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    TIMOTHY V. ANDERSON, HUD Commissioner & Anderson Law;
    WILLIAM I.F. COLLINS; U. S. POSTAL SERVICE; HUD, United States
    Housing &   Urban  Development;     JAMES    MATTHEWS;         TRACY
    THORNE-BEGLAND; JOHN MARSHALL CORPORATE WARD SYSTEMS;
    CHARLENE WHITE, Circuit Clerk; DENISE HARRIS, Circuit Clerk; ELECTED
    CIRCUIT CLERK JEWITT; METLIFE HOME LOANS/METLIFE BANK, N.A.;
    HUD/TSS,LCC; VEPCO, d/b/a Dominion Energy; MANDI LOUPASSI; BETTER
    HOUSING COALITION; HOMEWARD/CARITAS; RICHMOND FORD
    LINCOLN, AAA; FORD MANUFACTURER; UNION BANK & TRUST; JOHN
    ASBURY, CEO; JOHN STALLINGS, President; DMV COMMISSIONERS;
    VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES; KEITH M. YACKO;
    MCMICHAEL TAYLOR GRAY, LLC; NATIONAL SERVICING CENTER;
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; J. SARGEANT REYNOLDS; VCU;
    HENRICO & VA COURTS,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
    Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:20-cv-00163-JAG)
    Submitted: December 31, 2020                             Decided: February 10, 2021
    Before KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Tacitus Anastacius Hall, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    2
    PER CURIAM:
    Tacitus Anastacius Hall appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     complaint under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (e)(2)(B) for failure to state a claim. We have
    reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons
    stated by the district court.     Hall v. Anderson, No. 3:20-cv-00163-JAG (E.D. Va.
    May 18 & 19, 2020).      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
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20-1786

Filed Date: 2/10/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 2/10/2021