Filed: Dec. 15, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1862 DAVID E. HENDERSON, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. LT. GEN. KEITH ALEXANDER, The National Security Agency (NSA); HENRY PAULSON, Secretary of the Treasury; STEPHEN HADLEY, The National Security Council, The White House, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:08-cv-01673-CCB) Submitted: December 11, 2008 Decided: D
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1862 DAVID E. HENDERSON, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. LT. GEN. KEITH ALEXANDER, The National Security Agency (NSA); HENRY PAULSON, Secretary of the Treasury; STEPHEN HADLEY, The National Security Council, The White House, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:08-cv-01673-CCB) Submitted: December 11, 2008 Decided: De..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1862 DAVID E. HENDERSON, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. LT. GEN. KEITH ALEXANDER, The National Security Agency (NSA); HENRY PAULSON, Secretary of the Treasury; STEPHEN HADLEY, The National Security Council, The White House, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:08-cv-01673-CCB) 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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. Alexander, No. 1:08-cv-01673-CCB (D. Md. June 30, 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