Filed: Jun. 23, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6690 JAMES JOSEPH OWENS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (1:09-cv-00530-JFM) Submitted: June 4, 2009 Decided: June 23, 2009 Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Joseph O
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6690 JAMES JOSEPH OWENS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (1:09-cv-00530-JFM) Submitted: June 4, 2009 Decided: June 23, 2009 Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Joseph Ow..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6690 JAMES JOSEPH OWENS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (1:09-cv-00530-JFM) Submitted: June 4, 2009 Decided: June 23, 2009 Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Joseph Owens, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James Joseph Owens appeals the district court’s order dismissing this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(e) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. Owens v. United States, No. 1:09-cv-00530-JFM (D. Md. Mar. 31, 2009). 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
