Filed: Nov. 10, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1765 JOHNNY HILTON-BEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE, Disclosure Document Program, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-02- 4218-AMD, CA-03-1102-AMD) Submitted: October 22, 2003 Decided: November 10, 2003 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by u
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1765 JOHNNY HILTON-BEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE, Disclosure Document Program, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-02- 4218-AMD, CA-03-1102-AMD) Submitted: October 22, 2003 Decided: November 10, 2003 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by un..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1765 JOHNNY HILTON-BEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE, Disclosure Document Program, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-02- 4218-AMD, CA-03-1102-AMD) Submitted: October 22, 2003 Decided: November 10, 2003 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Johnny Hilton-Bey, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Johnny Hilton-Bey (“Hilton”) appeals from the dismissal of his civil action in which he alleged patent and trademark infringement against the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The district court dismissed Hilton’s claims without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have thoroughly reviewed the record in this matter and conclude that we are without appellate jurisdiction for the same reasons stated by the district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1)(2000). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. 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. DISMISSED 2