Filed: Mar. 08, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-2011 MICHAEL EVERRETT HARRIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JUDGE PETER J. MESSITTE; ATTORNEY GENERAL LORETTA E. LYNCH, Defendants - Appellees. No. 15-2012 MICHAEL E. HARRIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. U.S. JUDGE PAUL VICTOR NIEMEYER; LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Defendants - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge. (8:12-cv
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-2011 MICHAEL EVERRETT HARRIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JUDGE PETER J. MESSITTE; ATTORNEY GENERAL LORETTA E. LYNCH, Defendants - Appellees. No. 15-2012 MICHAEL E. HARRIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. U.S. JUDGE PAUL VICTOR NIEMEYER; LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Defendants - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge. (8:12-cv-..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-2011
MICHAEL EVERRETT HARRIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JUDGE PETER J. MESSITTE; ATTORNEY GENERAL LORETTA E. LYNCH,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 15-2012
MICHAEL E. HARRIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
U.S. JUDGE PAUL VICTOR NIEMEYER; LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney
General,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District
Judge. (8:12-cv-03807-RWT; 8:12-cv-03809-RWT)
Submitted: January 6, 2016 Decided: March 8, 2016
Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Everrett Harris, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Michael Everrett Harris appeals the district court’s orders
denying his motion for relief to reopen closed civil cases.
Based on our review of the record in these cases and Harris’
informal briefs on appeal, we conclude that these appeals are
frivolous. See Neitzke v. Williams,
490 U.S. 319, 325, 327
(1989). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012). We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3