Filed: Oct. 20, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6867 SAMUEL ROBERT QUEEN, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; U.S. DRUG ENFORCE- MENT AGENCY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-98- 1152-MJG) Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 20, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6867 SAMUEL ROBERT QUEEN, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; U.S. DRUG ENFORCE- MENT AGENCY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-98- 1152-MJG) Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 20, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam o..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6867 SAMUEL ROBERT QUEEN, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; U.S. DRUG ENFORCE- MENT AGENCY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-98- 1152-MJG) Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 20, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Samuel Robert Queen, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Samuel Robert Queen, Jr., appeals from the district court’s order denying his “Motion to Relieve Plaintiff to Pay Filing Costs.” 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. Queen v. United States, No. CA-98- 1152-MJG (D. Md. June 4, 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 2
