Filed: Feb. 22, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1664 JOHN LAIRD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN SNOW, Secretary, US Department of the Treasury, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (CA-03- 2717-RWT) Submitted: February 9, 2005 Decided: February 22, 2005 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Frederic M. B
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1664 JOHN LAIRD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN SNOW, Secretary, US Department of the Treasury, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (CA-03- 2717-RWT) Submitted: February 9, 2005 Decided: February 22, 2005 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Frederic M. Br..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1664 JOHN LAIRD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN SNOW, Secretary, US Department of the Treasury, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (CA-03- 2717-RWT) Submitted: February 9, 2005 Decided: February 22, 2005 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Frederic M. Brandes, Timonium, Maryland, for Appellant. Thomas M. DiBiagio, United States Attorney, John W. Sippel, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: John Laird appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his civil complaint and denying his motion for reconsideration. We find that Laird’s complaint was untimely filed for the reasons stated by the district court. Accordingly, we affirm. See Laird v. Snow, No. CA-03-2717-RWT (D. Md. Mar. 17, 2004 & Apr. 15, 2004). 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 -
