Filed: Dec. 21, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6052 JAMES A. BUTLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WARDEN; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-4102-1-WMN) Submitted: September 17, 2004 Decided: December 21, 2004 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James A. But
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6052 JAMES A. BUTLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WARDEN; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-4102-1-WMN) Submitted: September 17, 2004 Decided: December 21, 2004 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James A. Butl..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6052 JAMES A. BUTLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WARDEN; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-4102-1-WMN) Submitted: September 17, 2004 Decided: December 21, 2004 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James A. Butler, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew Wayne Mellady, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Annapolis Junction, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: James A. Butler appeals the district court’s order dismissing his Federal Tort Claims Act suit. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Butler v. Warden, No. CA-02-4102-1-WMN (D. Md. Oct. 24, 2003). 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 -
