Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Christopher Johnson v. Department of Justice, 17-2152 (2018)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 17-2152 Visitors: 7
Filed: Feb. 16, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-2152 CHRISTOPHER LEE JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; FINANCIALS; DEPARTMENT OF STATE; GOLDMAN SACHS; JP MORGAN CHASE; CITIGROUP; MORGAN STANLEY; U. S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT; LOYD BLANK FIEN; JAMIE DIAMON; JAMES GORMAN; U. S. FEDERAL RESERVE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (6:17-cv-0
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-2152 CHRISTOPHER LEE JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; FINANCIALS; DEPARTMENT OF STATE; GOLDMAN SACHS; JP MORGAN CHASE; CITIGROUP; MORGAN STANLEY; U. S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT; LOYD BLANK FIEN; JAMIE DIAMON; JAMES GORMAN; U. S. FEDERAL RESERVE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (6:17-cv-01844-MGL) Submitted: February 15, 2018 Decided: February 16, 2018 Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher Lee Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Christopher Lee Johnson appeals the district court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his civil action without prejudice and denying his motion to alter or amend the judgment. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Johnson v. Dep’t of Justice, No. 6:17-cv-01844-MGL (D.S.C. Aug. 31 & Sept. 18, 2017). 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
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer