Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Michael Harris v. Judge Peter Messitte, 13-1119 (2013)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 13-1119 Visitors: 73
Filed: Apr. 22, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1119 MICHAEL EVERRETT HARRIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JUDGE PETER J. MESSITTE; ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER, JR., Defendants - Appellees. No. 13-1120 MICHAEL EVERRETT HARRIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. U.S. JUDGE PAUL VICTOR NIEMEYER; ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Defendants - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:12-
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1119 MICHAEL EVERRETT HARRIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JUDGE PETER J. MESSITTE; ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER, JR., Defendants - Appellees. No. 13-1120 MICHAEL EVERRETT HARRIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. U.S. JUDGE PAUL VICTOR NIEMEYER; ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Defendants - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:12-cv-03807-RWT; 8:12-cv-03809-RWT) Submitted: April 18, 2013 Decided: April 22, 2013 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Michael Everrett Harris appeals the district court’s order consolidating his civil complaints against the United States Attorney General and two federal judicial officers and dismissing those complaints as frivolous, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Harris’ requests for counsel and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Harris v. Niemeyer, Case No. 8:12-cv-03807-RWT (D. Md. Jan. 10, 2013); Harris v. Messitte, Case No. 8:12-cv-03809-RWT (D. Md. Jan. 10, 2013). 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 3
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