Filed: Mar. 27, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1112 PHILLIP O’BRIANT, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JAYNE MILLER, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:18-cv-03252-GLR) Submitted: March 22, 2019 Decided: March 27, 2019 Before MOTZ, AGEE, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Phillip O’Briant, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1112 PHILLIP O’BRIANT, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JAYNE MILLER, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:18-cv-03252-GLR) Submitted: March 22, 2019 Decided: March 27, 2019 Before MOTZ, AGEE, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Phillip O’Briant, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-1112
PHILLIP O’BRIANT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JAYNE MILLER,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:18-cv-03252-GLR)
Submitted: March 22, 2019 Decided: March 27, 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Miller, No. 1:18-cv-03252-GLR (D. Md. filed Oct. 26, 2018; entered Oct. 29, 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