Parker v. United States, No. 07-6318 (4th Cir. Oct. 24, 2007). · Go Syfert
Parker v. United States, No. 07-6318 (4th Cir. Oct. 24, 2007). Book View Copy Cite
No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Parker
v.
United States
07-6318.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Oct 24, 2007.
Unpublished opinion
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6318

THOMAS PARKER, III,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis III, Senior District Judge. (1:06-cv-00774-TSE)

Submitted: October 18, 2007 Decided: October 24, 2007

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas Parker, III, Appellant Pro Se. Ralph Andrew Price, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Thomas Parker, III, appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the United States in his civil action filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act. We have reviewed the record, the district court’s order, and Parker’s informal appellate brief. Because Parker does not challenge the district court’s reasons for granting summary judgment, he has failed to preserve any issue for appellate review. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Moreover, Parker’s claims of attorney error provide no basis for relief. See Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Assail, Inc., 410 F.3d 256, 267 (5th Cir. 2005) (“The Sixth Amendment right to counsel is inapplicable in civil cases.”) (citations omitted). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See Parker v. United States, No. 1:06-cv-00774-TSE (E.D. Va. filed Feb. 21, 2007 & entered Feb. 22, 2007). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED