Filed: Jun. 12, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1270 CHUKWUMA E. AZUBUKO, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:04-cv-04000-JFM) Submitted: June 7, 2012 Decided: June 12, 2012 Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Chukwuma E. Azubuko, Appellant
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1270 CHUKWUMA E. AZUBUKO, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:04-cv-04000-JFM) Submitted: June 7, 2012 Decided: June 12, 2012 Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Chukwuma E. Azubuko, Appellant P..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1270 CHUKWUMA E. AZUBUKO, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:04-cv-04000-JFM) Submitted: June 7, 2012 Decided: June 12, 2012 Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Chukwuma E. Azubuko, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Chukwuma E. Azubuko appeals the district court’s order denying his motion seeking consideration of his case by a three- judge panel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2284 (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. 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. DISMISSED 2
