Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Toby Mackall v. US Department Of Defense, 17-2435 (2018)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 17-2435 Visitors: 3
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Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-2435 TOBY ROBERTO MACKALL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; CLARK W.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
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                                    UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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