Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Ogunde v. Department of Treas, 97-2480 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-2480 Visitors: 1
Filed: Feb. 24, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-2480 OLUDARE OGUNDE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, United States Secret Service; DANA A. BROWN; DAVID G. CARPENTER; JOHN RYAN; ANNE TABOR; DANIEL WOLOSZYNOWSKI; PAUL A. HACKENBERRY; JODY LUKE; OTHER UNKNOWN EMPLOYEES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY AND THE UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Al
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-2480 OLUDARE OGUNDE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, United States Secret Service; DANA A. BROWN; DAVID G. CARPENTER; JOHN RYAN; ANNE TABOR; DANIEL WOLOSZYNOWSKI; PAUL A. HACKENBERRY; JODY LUKE; OTHER UNKNOWN EMPLOYEES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY AND THE UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-97-586-AM) Submitted: February 12, 1998 Decided: February 24, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Oludare Ogunde, Appellant Pro Se. Gordon Dean Kromberg, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's orders dismissing his civil action and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration of that order. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Ogunde v. Department of Treasury, No. CA-97-586-AM (E.D. Va. Sept. 25 & Oct. 10, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
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