Filed: May 20, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-2460 HARRISON LEWIS, III, Petitioner - Appellant, v. PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP; JOHN KELLY, W.H. Chief of Staff; U.S.S.S. FORWARDER, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:18-cv-02985-RDB) Submitted: May 2, 2019 Decided: May 20, 2019 Before NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Aff
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-2460 HARRISON LEWIS, III, Petitioner - Appellant, v. PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP; JOHN KELLY, W.H. Chief of Staff; U.S.S.S. FORWARDER, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:18-cv-02985-RDB) Submitted: May 2, 2019 Decided: May 20, 2019 Before NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affi..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-2460
HARRISON LEWIS, III,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP; JOHN KELLY, W.H. Chief of Staff; U.S.S.S.
FORWARDER,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:18-cv-02985-RDB)
Submitted: May 2, 2019 Decided: May 20, 2019
Before NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Harrison Lewis, III, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Harrison Lewis, III, appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil
complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012). We have reviewed the record
and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the pending motions and affirm for
the reasons stated by the district court. See Lewis v. Trump, No. 1:18-cv-02985-RDB (D.
Md. Nov. 1, 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