Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Nwaneri v. Ashcroft, 01-8009 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-8009 Visitors: 15
Filed: Feb. 27, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-8009 CHUKS EVARISTUS NWANERI, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN ASHCROFT, U. S. Attorney General; JANET RENO, Former U. S. Attorney General; WILLIAM BARR, Attorney General; RICHARD D. BENNETT, U. S. Attorney; LYNNE ANN BATTAGLIA, U. S. Attor- ney; ROBERT HARDING, Assistant U. S. Attorney; JAN MILLER, Assistant U. S. Attorney; JEFF BIELSKI, D. E. A. Agent, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-8009 CHUKS EVARISTUS NWANERI, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN ASHCROFT, U. S. Attorney General; JANET RENO, Former U. S. Attorney General; WILLIAM BARR, Attorney General; RICHARD D. BENNETT, U. S. Attorney; LYNNE ANN BATTAGLIA, U. S. Attor- ney; ROBERT HARDING, Assistant U. S. Attorney; JAN MILLER, Assistant U. S. Attorney; JEFF BIELSKI, D. E. A. Agent, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA- 01-3059-JFM) Submitted: February 14, 2002 Decided: February 27, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Chuks Evaristus Nwaneri, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Chuks Evaristus Nwaneri appeals from the district court’s orders dismissing his action and denying his motion for reconsid- eration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s memorandum and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Nwaneri v. Ashcroft, No. CA- 01-3059-JFM (D. Md. Oct. 22 & Nov. 8, 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
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