Filed: Apr. 16, 2002
Latest Update: Feb. 13, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1548 DAVID WILLIAM HARRIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA-00-3716-JFM) Submitted: February 22, 2002 Decided: April 16, 2002 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David William Harris,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1548 DAVID WILLIAM HARRIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA-00-3716-JFM) Submitted: February 22, 2002 Decided: April 16, 2002 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David William Harris, A..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1548 DAVID WILLIAM HARRIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA-00-3716-JFM) Submitted: February 22, 2002 Decided: April 16, 2002 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David William Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Charles Kay, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: David W. Harris appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action seeking return of currency that was administratively forfeited to the United States. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Harris v. Drug Enforcement Admin., No. CA-00-3716-JFM (D. Md. Mar. 29, 2001). 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
