Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Leo Brisbane v. Food Lion, LLC, 17-6687 (2017)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 17-6687 Visitors: 20
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Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6687 LEO EDWARD BRISBANE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. FOOD LION, LLC, Defendant - Appellee.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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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
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                                      UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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