Filed: Dec. 30, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2166 ABRAHAM THOMPSON, III, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE; ROSS R. BACCARNIRI, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA- 02-2735-JFM) Submitted: December 19, 2002 Decided: December 30, 2002 Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublis
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2166 ABRAHAM THOMPSON, III, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE; ROSS R. BACCARNIRI, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA- 02-2735-JFM) Submitted: December 19, 2002 Decided: December 30, 2002 Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublish..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2166 ABRAHAM THOMPSON, III, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE; ROSS R. BACCARNIRI, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA- 02-2735-JFM) Submitted: December 19, 2002 Decided: December 30, 2002 Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Abraham Thompson, III, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Abraham Thompson, III, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Thompson v. U.S. Postal Service, No. CA-02-2735-JFM (D. Md. Sept. 16, 2002). 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
