Filed: Feb. 05, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2625 JAMES ARTHUR YOUNG, for all persons injured in cars and light trucks as well as all killed in United States by auto or light trucks accidents, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE; GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Detroit; FORD MOTOR COM- PANY, Detroit; CHRYSLER CORPORATION, Detroit, Michigan; TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION, George- town, Kentucky, Defendan
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2625 JAMES ARTHUR YOUNG, for all persons injured in cars and light trucks as well as all killed in United States by auto or light trucks accidents, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE; GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Detroit; FORD MOTOR COM- PANY, Detroit; CHRYSLER CORPORATION, Detroit, Michigan; TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION, George- town, Kentucky, Defendant..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-2625
JAMES ARTHUR YOUNG, for all persons injured in
cars and light trucks as well as all killed in
United States by auto or light trucks
accidents,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION;
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE; GENERAL
MOTORS CORPORATION, Detroit; FORD MOTOR COM-
PANY, Detroit; CHRYSLER CORPORATION, Detroit,
Michigan; TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION, George-
town, Kentucky,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-98-
2977-L)
Submitted: January 21, 1999 Decided: February 5, 1999
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Arthur Young, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
James Arthur Young appeals the district court’s order denying
relief on his civil complaint. We have reviewed the record and the
district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accord-
ingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Young
v. United States Dep’t of Transp., No. CA-98-2977-L (D. Md. Sept.
10, 1998).* 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.
AFFIRMED
*
The order from which Young appeals was filed on September 9,
1998, and entered on the district court’s docket September 10,
1998, in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 and 79(a). See Wilson
v. Murray,
806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).
2