Filed: Feb. 17, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1869 CHRISTOPHER MADDOX MOSSBURG, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge. (8:15-cv-01633-RWT) Submitted: January 4, 2017 Decided: February 17, 2017 Before TRAXLER, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher Maddox Mossbu
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1869 CHRISTOPHER MADDOX MOSSBURG, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge. (8:15-cv-01633-RWT) Submitted: January 4, 2017 Decided: February 17, 2017 Before TRAXLER, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher Maddox Mossbur..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1869 CHRISTOPHER MADDOX MOSSBURG, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge. (8:15-cv-01633-RWT) Submitted: January 4, 2017 Decided: February 17, 2017 Before TRAXLER, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher Maddox Mossburg, Appellant Pro Se. Michele J. McDonald, Alexis Burrell Rohde, Assistant Attorneys General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Christopher Maddox Mossburg appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Mossburg v. Maryland, No. 8:15-cv-01633-RWT (D. Md. June 29, 2016). 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
