Filed: Jul. 24, 2020
Latest Update: Sep. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-6320 DAMON ELLIOTT, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BELTSVILLE AGRICULTURE RESEARCH CENTER; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:18-cv-03027-PJM) Submitted: July 16, 2020 Decided: July 24, 2020 Before WYNN, DIAZ, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished pe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-6320 DAMON ELLIOTT, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BELTSVILLE AGRICULTURE RESEARCH CENTER; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:18-cv-03027-PJM) Submitted: July 16, 2020 Decided: July 24, 2020 Before WYNN, DIAZ, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-6320 DAMON ELLIOTT, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BELTSVILLE AGRICULTURE RESEARCH CENTER; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:18-cv-03027-PJM) Submitted: July 16, 2020 Decided: July 24, 2020 Before WYNN, DIAZ, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Damon Emanuel Elliott, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Damon Elliott appeals the district court’s memorandum opinion and order dismissing his complaint without prejudice. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Elliott v. Beltsville Agric. Research Ctr., No. 8:18-cv-03027-PJM (D. Md. Feb. 20, 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 2
