Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Foxworth v. United States, 96-2857 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-2857 Visitors: 5
Filed: Apr. 25, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2857 CLARENCE N. FOXWORTH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Chief District Judge. (CA-92-1275-A) No. 97-1192 CLARENCE N. FOXWORTH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION; PRINCE GEO
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2857 CLARENCE N. FOXWORTH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Chief District Judge. (CA-92-1275-A) No. 97-1192 CLARENCE N. FOXWORTH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION; PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MARY- LAND; WAYNE M. CURRY, Executive County of Prince George's Maryland; COUNTY OF PRINCE GEORGE'S MARYLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT; ALPHONSO HAWKINS, Chief of Police, County of Prince George's Maryland Police Department; STATE OF MARYLAND; PARRIS N. GLENDENING, Governor, State of Maryland; POLICE DEPARTMENT, State of Maryland; WASHINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES, INCORPORATED, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-1690-JFM) Submitted: April 17, 1997 Decided: April 25, 1997 Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clarence N. Foxworth, Appellant Pro Se. Dennis Edward Szybala, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). 2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district courts' orders denying his motions to reinstate his complaints filed under 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1994). We have reviewed the record and the district courts' opin- ions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district courts. Foxworth v. United States, No. CA-92-1275-A (E.D. Va. Nov. 26, 1996); No. CA-95-1690-JFM (D. Md. Jan. 6, 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 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