Filed: Aug. 29, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6687 LEO EDWARD BRISBANE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. FOOD LION, LLC, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:17-cv-00989-JFM) Submitted: August 24, 2017 Decided: August 29, 2017 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leo Edward Brisbane, Appe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6687 LEO EDWARD BRISBANE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. FOOD LION, LLC, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:17-cv-00989-JFM) Submitted: August 24, 2017 Decided: August 29, 2017 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leo Edward Brisbane, Appel..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-6687
LEO EDWARD BRISBANE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
FOOD LION, LLC,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:17-cv-00989-JFM)
Submitted: August 24, 2017 Decided: August 29, 2017
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Leo Edward Brisbane, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Leo Edward Brisbane appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 (2012) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012). We have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. Brisbane v. Food Lion, LLC, No. 1:17-cv-00989-JFM (D. Md. May 5,
2017). We also deny Brisbane’s motion for costs. 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.
AFFIRMED
2