Filed: Sep. 12, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1780 EDWARD G. TINSLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-97- 1333-AMD) Submitted: August 28, 1997 Decided: September 12, 1997 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edward G. Tinsley, Appellant Pro
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1780 EDWARD G. TINSLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-97- 1333-AMD) Submitted: August 28, 1997 Decided: September 12, 1997 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edward G. Tinsley, Appellant Pro ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1780 EDWARD G. TINSLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-97- 1333-AMD) Submitted: August 28, 1997 Decided: September 12, 1997 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edward G. Tinsley, Appellant Pro Se. Larry David Adams, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his suit filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. ยง 1346 (1994). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opin- ion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Tinsley v. United States, No. CA- 97-1333-AMD (D. Md. May 8, 1997). 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
