Filed: Mar. 03, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-2244 TYSON LAVEL MELTON, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Executive Branch, Legislative Brand and Judicial Branch, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:14-cv-03112-JFM) Submitted: February 25, 2015 Decided: March 3, 2015 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-2244 TYSON LAVEL MELTON, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Executive Branch, Legislative Brand and Judicial Branch, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:14-cv-03112-JFM) Submitted: February 25, 2015 Decided: March 3, 2015 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-2244 TYSON LAVEL MELTON, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Executive Branch, Legislative Brand and Judicial Branch, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:14-cv-03112-JFM) Submitted: February 25, 2015 Decided: March 3, 2015 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tyson LaVel Melton, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Tyson LaVel Melton, Sr., appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his civil complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Melton v. United States, No. 1:14-cv-03112-JFM (D. Md. Nov. 10, 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