Filed: Dec. 22, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1658 MICHAEL EUGENE TANN, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. JUDGE PAUL W. GRIMM; KIM MCDERMOTT, Defendants – Appellees, and U.S. MARSHALL, (name unknown), Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:14-cv-00926-WDQ) Submitted: November 20, 2014 Decided: December 22, 2014 Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Cir
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1658 MICHAEL EUGENE TANN, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. JUDGE PAUL W. GRIMM; KIM MCDERMOTT, Defendants – Appellees, and U.S. MARSHALL, (name unknown), Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:14-cv-00926-WDQ) Submitted: November 20, 2014 Decided: December 22, 2014 Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1658
MICHAEL EUGENE TANN,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
JUDGE PAUL W. GRIMM; KIM MCDERMOTT,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
U.S. MARSHALL, (name unknown),
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District
Judge. (1:14-cv-00926-WDQ)
Submitted: November 20, 2014 Decided: December 22, 2014
Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Eugene Tann, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Eugene Tann appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2012) for
failure to state a claim. We have reviewed the record and find
no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons
stated by the district court. Tann v. Grimm, No. 1:14-cv-00926-
WDQ (D. Md. June 6, 2014). We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2