Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Williams v. United States, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a court case in which Michael J. Williams appealed a district court's dismissal without prejudice of his complaint filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act against the United States and various officials. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so they affirmed the district court's dismissal. The appeals court also denied Williams' request for oral arguments, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the existing case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2005-10-19 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 05-6692

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes a court case in which Michael J. Williams appealed a district court's dismissal without prejudice of his complaint filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act against the United States and various officials. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so they affirmed the district court's dismissal. The appeals court also denied Williams' request for oral arguments, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the existing case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    4 views2 pages

    Williams v. United States, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case in which Michael J. Williams appealed a district court's dismissal without prejudice of his complaint filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act against the United States and various officials. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so they affirmed the district court's dismissal. The appeals court also denied Williams' request for oral arguments, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the existing case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 05-6692

    MICHAEL J. WILLIAMS,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; HARLY G. LAPIN; KIM
    WHITE; B. G. COMPTON; JERRY JONES; STRICKLAND;
    OFFICER STORY; G. COOPER; OFFICER GIDDINS;
    OFFICER
    MOLLICA;
    JESSICA
    JONES;
    OFFICER
    TORRES; OFFICER BOURQUE; R. FLANARY; OFFICER
    JOHNSON; OFFICER ELDRIDGE; OFFICER MARQUES;
    HARRELL WATTS,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District
    Judge. (CA-05-202-7-JCT)

    Submitted:

    September 23, 2005

    Decided:

    October 19, 2005

    Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Michael J. Williams, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Michael J. Williams appeals the district courts order
    dismissing without prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A(b)(2)
    (2000), his complaint filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28
    U.S.C. 1346, et seq., 2671-2680 (2000).
    record

    and

    find

    no

    reversible

    error.

    We have reviewed the


    Accordingly,

    we

    grant

    Williams motion to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm the


    district courts order for the reasons stated by the district
    court.

    See Williams v. United States, No. CA-05-202-7-JCT (W.D.

    Va. Apr. 26, 2005).


    facts

    and

    materials

    legal
    before

    We dispense with oral argument because the

    contentions
    the

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in

    the

    aid

    the

    decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    - 2 -

    You might also like