Filed: Jun. 06, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1187 NATALYA TAMARA HAMPEL; JOSEPH HAMPEL, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-01-124-JFM) Submitted: May 31, 2001 Decided: June 6, 2001 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished pe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1187 NATALYA TAMARA HAMPEL; JOSEPH HAMPEL, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-01-124-JFM) Submitted: May 31, 2001 Decided: June 6, 2001 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1187 NATALYA TAMARA HAMPEL; JOSEPH HAMPEL, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-01-124-JFM) Submitted: May 31, 2001 Decided: June 6, 2001 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Natalya Tamara Hampel, Joseph Hampel, Appellants Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Natalya Tamara Hampel and Joseph Hampel appeal the district court’s order summarily dismissing their complaint alleging that defendants acted under color of federal law to deprive the Hampels of their constitutional rights. 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. Hampel v. United States, No. CA-01-124-JFM (D. Md. Jan. 29, 2001). We dis- pense 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
