Filed: Jul. 27, 2020
Latest Update: Sep. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-1276 TANVEER S. MAJID, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (CIA), Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (8:20-cv-00233-DKC) Submitted: July 23, 2020 Decided: July 27, 2020 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tanveer S. Majid, Ap
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-1276 TANVEER S. MAJID, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (CIA), Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (8:20-cv-00233-DKC) Submitted: July 23, 2020 Decided: July 27, 2020 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tanveer S. Majid, App..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-1276
TANVEER S. MAJID,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (CIA),
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (8:20-cv-00233-DKC)
Submitted: July 23, 2020 Decided: July 27, 2020
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tanveer S. Majid, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tanveer S. Majid appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(2018) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2018). We have reviewed the record
and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. Majid v. Cent. Intelligence Agency, No. 8:20-cv-00233-DKC (D. Md. Mar. 4, 2020).
We deny Majid’s motion to expedite. 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