Yuri Stoyanov v. Charles Behrle, No. 13-1632 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1632 YURI J. STOYANOV, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CHARLES BEHRLE, Individually and in his Official Capacity as the Head of the Carderock Division; GARY M. JEBSEN, Individually and his Official Capacity as the Head of Code 70; KEVIN M. WILSON, Individually and in his Official Capacity as the Head of Code 74; BRUCE CROCK, Individually and in his Official Capacity as the Head of Code 743; DAVID CARON, Individually as in his Official Capacity as Assistant Counsel Code 39; RAY MABUS, Secretary of the Navy; JOSEPH VIGNALI, Individually and in his Official Capacity as the Head of Code 7207; CIRO MINOPOLI, Individually and in his Official Capacity as the Head of Code 75; ROGER FORD, Individually and in his Official Capacity as the Head of Code 7014; GARTH JENSEN, Individually and in his Official Capacity as the Deputy Head of Code 70; DONALD CLARK, Individually and in his Official Capacity as the Head of Code 713; SUZANNE D. FRIEDMAN, Individually and in her Official Capacity as Acting Head of Code 30; CHARLES GIACCHI, Individually and in his Official Capacity as the Technical Director of NSWC; ARCHER MACY, Individually and in his Official Capacity as the Head of Naval Surface Warfare Center, Defendants Appellees, and DONALD C. WINTER, Secretary of the Navy, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District Judge. (1:07-cv-01953-DKC) Submitted: September 24, 2013 Before NIEMEYER and Senior Circuit Judge. THACKER, Decided: Circuit September 26, 2013 Judges, and HAMILTON, Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Yuri J. Stoyanov, Appellant Pro Se. Assistant United States Attorney, Appellees. John Walter Sippel, Jr., Baltimore, Maryland, for Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Yuri J. Stoyanov appeals the district court s order granting Defendants summary judgment motion on his several federal and state law claims against them, and its order denying his motion for reconsideration and his self-styled Motion to Investigate Fraud in 3/15/13 Order and Memorandum Opinion and Delay in Sending Until 2 May 2013[.] record and find no reversible error. district court s orders. We have reviewed the Accordingly, we affirm the See Stoyanov v. Behrle, No. 1:07-cv- 01953-DKC (D. Md. March 15, 2013; May 15, 2013). 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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
