Filed: May 01, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2282 ROBERT CARLYLE BERRETT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GRACE INEZ ELMO, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-98-1428-DKC) Submitted: April 20, 2001 Decided: May 1, 2001 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Carly
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2282 ROBERT CARLYLE BERRETT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GRACE INEZ ELMO, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-98-1428-DKC) Submitted: April 20, 2001 Decided: May 1, 2001 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Carlyl..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2282 ROBERT CARLYLE BERRETT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GRACE INEZ ELMO, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-98-1428-DKC) Submitted: April 20, 2001 Decided: May 1, 2001 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Carlyle Berrett, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Robert Carlyle Berrett appeals the district court’s order dis- missing his civil action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and agree that there is no subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Berrett v. Elmo, No. CA-98-1428-DKC (D. Md. Sept. 14, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate- ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
