Filed: Oct. 25, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1631 WILLIAM LEE GRANT, II, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:18-cv-01327-GLR) Submitted: October 23, 2018 Decided: October 25, 2018 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1631 WILLIAM LEE GRANT, II, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:18-cv-01327-GLR) Submitted: October 23, 2018 Decided: October 25, 2018 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per c..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-1631
WILLIAM LEE GRANT, II,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE
TREASURY,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:18-cv-01327-GLR)
Submitted: October 23, 2018 Decided: October 25, 2018
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Lee Grant, II, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William Lee Grant, II, appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find that this
appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we deny Grant’s motion for summary reversal and
dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. Grant v. U.S. Dep’t of
Transp., No. 1:18-cv-01327-GLR (D. Md. May 16, 2018). 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
2