Filed: May 31, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1274 GIL W. JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. STATE OF MARYLAND STATE’S ATTORNEY OFFICE, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, District Judge. (1:10-cv-03427-BEL) Submitted: May 26, 2011 Decided: May 31, 2011 Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gil W. Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Unp
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1274 GIL W. JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. STATE OF MARYLAND STATE’S ATTORNEY OFFICE, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, District Judge. (1:10-cv-03427-BEL) Submitted: May 26, 2011 Decided: May 31, 2011 Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gil W. Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Unpu..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1274 GIL W. JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. STATE OF MARYLAND STATE’S ATTORNEY OFFICE, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, District Judge. (1:10-cv-03427-BEL) Submitted: May 26, 2011 Decided: May 31, 2011 Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gil W. Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Gil W. Jones appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his civil complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Jones v. Md. State’s Attorney Office, No. 1:10-cv-03427-BEL (D. Md. Mar. 8, 2011). 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
