Filed: Feb. 21, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-2807 WINFRED F. NICHOLSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHELE JOHNSON; DONNA BAYNE; JAMES LEATHERMAN; KEVIN FELIX, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-95-1044-WMN) Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 21, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Aff
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-2807 WINFRED F. NICHOLSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHELE JOHNSON; DONNA BAYNE; JAMES LEATHERMAN; KEVIN FELIX, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-95-1044-WMN) Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 21, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affi..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-2807 WINFRED F. NICHOLSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHELE JOHNSON; DONNA BAYNE; JAMES LEATHERMAN; KEVIN FELIX, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-95-1044-WMN) Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 21, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Winfred F. Nicholson, Appellant Pro Se. Gary R. Allen, Joan Iris Oppenheimer, Jonathan Samuel Cohen, Edward J. Snyder, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing his action against four Internal Revenue Service employees in which he alleged due process violations by their actions in levying on his wages. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Nicholson v. Johnson, No. CA-95- 1044-WMN (D. Md. Sept. 15, 1995). 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 deci- sional process. AFFIRMED 2