Filed: Aug. 19, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1369 ROBERT R. CURTIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Movant - Appellee, and JOHN O. THOMPSON; STEWART REMER; HELEN HURCOMBE; MARK LANGSTEIN; JOHN MCNULTY, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:05-cv- 00868-RWT) Submitted: August 14, 2008 Decided: August 19, 2008 Before MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, and WILKINS a
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1369 ROBERT R. CURTIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Movant - Appellee, and JOHN O. THOMPSON; STEWART REMER; HELEN HURCOMBE; MARK LANGSTEIN; JOHN MCNULTY, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:05-cv- 00868-RWT) Submitted: August 14, 2008 Decided: August 19, 2008 Before MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, and WILKINS an..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1369 ROBERT R. CURTIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Movant - Appellee, and JOHN O. THOMPSON; STEWART REMER; HELEN HURCOMBE; MARK LANGSTEIN; JOHN MCNULTY, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:05-cv- 00868-RWT) Submitted: August 14, 2008 Decided: August 19, 2008 Before MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert R. Curtis, Appellant Pro Se. Tarra R. DeShields-Minnis, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Robert R. Curtis appeals the district court’s order substituting the United States for all defendants and granting judgment to the United States. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Curtis v. Thompson, No. 8:05-cv- 00868-RWT (D. Md. Jan. 31, 2008). 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. AFFIRMED 3