Filed: Dec. 21, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2230 JOHN W. MILTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA- 98-4098-PJM) Submitted: December 16, 1999 Decided: December 21, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Affirmed by unpu
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2230 JOHN W. MILTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA- 98-4098-PJM) Submitted: December 16, 1999 Decided: December 21, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Affirmed by unpub..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2230 JOHN W. MILTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA- 98-4098-PJM) Submitted: December 16, 1999 Decided: December 21, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John W. Milton, Appellant Pro Se. Tamera Lynn Fine, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: John W. Milton appeals from the district court’s order dis- missing his complaint in which he sought to exempt his civil ser- vice retirement payments from a restitution claim arising out of a criminal conviction. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we af- firm on the reasoning of the district court. See Milton v. Office of Personnel Management, No. CA-98-4098-PJM (D. Md. Aug. 23, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten- tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2