Filed: Feb. 04, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2157 AL MAAJID MUHAMMAD EL, on behalf of his two minor children, Hasan Muhammad El and Ashanti Muhammad El, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MARYLAND STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA- 03-2366-1-CCB) Submitted: January 29, 2004 Decided: February 4, 2004 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, an
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2157 AL MAAJID MUHAMMAD EL, on behalf of his two minor children, Hasan Muhammad El and Ashanti Muhammad El, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MARYLAND STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA- 03-2366-1-CCB) Submitted: January 29, 2004 Decided: February 4, 2004 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2157 AL MAAJID MUHAMMAD EL, on behalf of his two minor children, Hasan Muhammad El and Ashanti Muhammad El, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MARYLAND STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA- 03-2366-1-CCB) Submitted: January 29, 2004 Decided: February 4, 2004 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Al Maajid Muhammad El, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Al Maajid Muhammad El appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) and RICO complaints under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find the appeal fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Muhammad El v. Maryland State Bd. of Law Exam’rs., CA- 03-2366 (D. Md. Aug. 25, 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 -
