Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Henderson v. Bureau of Alcohol, 08-2016 (2008)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 08-2016 Visitors: 19
Filed: Dec. 15, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-2016 DAVID E. HENDERSON, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, FIREARMS, TOBACCO & EXPLOSIVES; BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; JUDGE MULKASEY, United States Department of Justice; ROBERT MUELLER, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., Distr
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-2016 DAVID E. HENDERSON, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, FIREARMS, TOBACCO & EXPLOSIVES; BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; JUDGE MULKASEY, United States Department of Justice; ROBERT MUELLER, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:08-cv-1845-WDQ) Submitted: December 11, 2008 Decided: December 15, 2008 Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David E. Henderson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: David E. Henderson appeals the district court’s order granting his request to proceed in forma pauperis but dismissing this case as patently frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. Henderson v. Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, Tobacco & Explosives, No. 1:08-cv-01845-WDQ (D. Md. Aug. 29, 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. 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