Filed: Nov. 29, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-2146 TIJON COX, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; BARACK OBAMA, President, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (1:10-cv-02650-JFM) Submitted: November 18, 2010 Decided: November 29, 2010 Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-2146 TIJON COX, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; BARACK OBAMA, President, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (1:10-cv-02650-JFM) Submitted: November 18, 2010 Decided: November 29, 2010 Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam o..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-2146
TIJON COX,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; BARACK OBAMA, President,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge.
(1:10-cv-02650-JFM)
Submitted: November 18, 2010 Decided: November 29, 2010
Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
TiJon Cox, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
TiJon Cox appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his civil complaint under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), (iii) (2006). We have reviewed the record
and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. Cox v. United States, No.
1:10-cv-02650-JFM (D. Md. filed Sept. 29, 2010 & entered
Sept. 30, 2010). We further deny as moot Cox’s motion to
expedite. 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