Filed: Aug. 03, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1925 LLOYD JUNIOR MAXWELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE; INS DISTRICT DIRECTOR; LESLIE S. TURNER, A. D. C.; LINDA DOMINQUEZ, A. D. C.; JILL H. DUFRESNE, Judge, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-1675-S) Submitted: July
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1925 LLOYD JUNIOR MAXWELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE; INS DISTRICT DIRECTOR; LESLIE S. TURNER, A. D. C.; LINDA DOMINQUEZ, A. D. C.; JILL H. DUFRESNE, Judge, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-1675-S) Submitted: July ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-1925
LLOYD JUNIOR MAXWELL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; U.S.
IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE; INS
DISTRICT DIRECTOR; LESLIE S. TURNER, A. D. C.;
LINDA DOMINQUEZ, A. D. C.; JILL H. DUFRESNE,
Judge,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, Senior District
Judge. (CA-02-1675-S)
Submitted: July 29, 2004 Decided: August 3, 2004
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lloyd Junior Maxwell, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Lloyd Junior Maxwell appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on his action filed under the Federal Tort Claims
Act and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of
Narcotics,
403 U.S. 388 (1971). We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons
stated by the district court. See Maxwell v. United States Dep’t
of Justice, No. CA-02-1675-S (D. Md. June 26, 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 -