Filed: Mar. 13, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-2443 PHILLIP O’BRIANT, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. LARRY HOGAN, Governor; PETE K. RAHN, Secretary, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:18-cv-03270-RDB) Submitted: March 5, 2019 Decided: March 13, 2019 Before MOTZ, AGEE, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Phillip O’Briant
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-2443 PHILLIP O’BRIANT, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. LARRY HOGAN, Governor; PETE K. RAHN, Secretary, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:18-cv-03270-RDB) Submitted: March 5, 2019 Decided: March 13, 2019 Before MOTZ, AGEE, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Phillip O’Briant,..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-2443
PHILLIP O’BRIANT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LARRY HOGAN, Governor; PETE K. RAHN, Secretary,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:18-cv-03270-RDB)
Submitted: March 5, 2019 Decided: March 13, 2019
Before MOTZ, AGEE, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Phillip O’Briant, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Phillip O’Briant appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See O’Briant v.
Hogan, No. 1:18-cv-03270-RDB (D. Md. Nov. 14, 2018). 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