Filed: Apr. 29, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-2473 WILLIAM LEE GRANT, II, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:18-cv-01327-GLR) Submitted: April 25, 2019 Decided: April 29, 2019 Before FLOYD and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senio
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-2473 WILLIAM LEE GRANT, II, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:18-cv-01327-GLR) Submitted: April 25, 2019 Decided: April 29, 2019 Before FLOYD and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-2473 WILLIAM LEE GRANT, II, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:18-cv-01327-GLR) Submitted: April 25, 2019 Decided: April 29, 2019 Before FLOYD and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Lee Grant, II, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: William Lee Grant, II, appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to amend his complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion and no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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
