Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Kissi v. Clement, 08-8281 (2009)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 08-8281 Visitors: 36
Filed: May 01, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8281 DAVID M. KISSI, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PAUL CLEMENT, U.S. Solicitor General; U.S. SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION; CHRISTY BARRERA, U.S. Small Business Administration; PETER J. MESSITTE, Judge; SANDRA WILKERSON, Assistant U.S. Attorney; BARBARA SALE, Assistant U.S. Attorney; JONATHAN BIRON, Assistant U.S. Attorney; THOMAS SIMMONS, FBI Agent; BEN CIVELETTI; VENABLE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8281 DAVID M. KISSI, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PAUL CLEMENT, U.S. Solicitor General; U.S. SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION; CHRISTY BARRERA, U.S. Small Business Administration; PETER J. MESSITTE, Judge; SANDRA WILKERSON, Assistant U.S. Attorney; BARBARA SALE, Assistant U.S. Attorney; JONATHAN BIRON, Assistant U.S. Attorney; THOMAS SIMMONS, FBI Agent; BEN CIVELETTI; VENABLE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:08- cv-02178-RWT) Submitted: April 23, 2009 Decided: May 1, 2009 Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David M. Kissi, Appellant Pro Se. Ariana Wright Arnold, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: David M. Kissi appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint because he failed to obtain pre-filing authorization. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Kissi’s motion for appointment of counsel and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Kissi v. Clement, No. 8:08-cv-02178-RWT (D. Md. Sept. 5, 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 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