Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Gibbs v. United States, 03-2008 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-2008 Visitors: 44
Filed: Jun. 14, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2008 M. EUGENE GIBBS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, (DCMAO); DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; GEORGE MOORE; DOES 1-5; DUANE A. CAESAR, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA-02-45-JFM) Submitted: February 2, 2004 Decided: June 14, 2004 Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, a
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2008 M. EUGENE GIBBS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, (DCMAO); DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; GEORGE MOORE; DOES 1-5; DUANE A. CAESAR, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA-02-45-JFM) Submitted: February 2, 2004 Decided: June 14, 2004 Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. M. Eugene Gibbs, Appellant Pro Se. Allen F. Loucks, Jennifer Lilore Huesman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: M. Eugene Gibbs appeals from the district court’s denial of his motions for reconsideration and for injunctive relief. Because we agree with the district court that Gibbs’ motions were frivolous, we dismiss the appeal. To the extent that Gibbs seeks release from prison, he must pursue such relief in his criminal case. We deny all of Gibbs’ pending motions, including his motions for habeas corpus relief, to expedite, to amend his notice of appeal, and for appointment of counsel. 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 -
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer