Filed: May 08, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-2435 TOBY ROBERTO MACKALL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; CLARK W. LEMASTERS, JR., Major General, U.S. Army, TACOM Commanding General; TIMOTHY D. LUEDECKING, Colonel, U.S. Army, Military Assistant, OUSD ATL; MYRON L. BELL, Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army; MATTHEW D. TOBIN, Major, U.S. Army, Detailed Inspector General, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-2435 TOBY ROBERTO MACKALL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; CLARK W. LEMASTERS, JR., Major General, U.S. Army, TACOM Commanding General; TIMOTHY D. LUEDECKING, Colonel, U.S. Army, Military Assistant, OUSD ATL; MYRON L. BELL, Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army; MATTHEW D. TOBIN, Major, U.S. Army, Detailed Inspector General, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the D..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-2435
TOBY ROBERTO MACKALL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; CLARK W. LEMASTERS,
JR., Major General, U.S. Army, TACOM Commanding General; TIMOTHY D.
LUEDECKING, Colonel, U.S. Army, Military Assistant, OUSD ATL; MYRON L.
BELL, Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army; MATTHEW D. TOBIN, Major, U.S.
Army, Detailed Inspector General,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:17-cv-00774-RDB)
Submitted: April 26, 2018 Decided: May 8, 2018
Before KING, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Toby Roberto Mackall, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Toby Roberto Mackall appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his
complaint asserting claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-2680
(2012), and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,
403 U.S.
388 (1971). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Mackall v. Dep’t of Defense, No. 1:17-
cv-00774-RDB (D. Md. Nov. 20, 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