Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 7 views

    Spence v. United States, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief on Daniel Spence's two 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaints. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning for denying the complaints. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    Spence v. United States, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief on Daniel Spence's two 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaints. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning for denying the complaints. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2004-11-18 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 04-7394

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief on Daniel Spence's two 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaints. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning for denying the complaints. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    7 views3 pages

    Spence v. United States, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief on Daniel Spence's two 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaints. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning for denying the complaints. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 04-7394

    DANIEL L. SPENCE, a/k/a Daniel Johnson,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Defendant - Appellee.

    No. 04-7526

    DANIEL L. SPENCE,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    THOMAS DIBIAGIO, United States Attorney; JOHN
    J. BARRY, Federal Bureau of Investigations;
    PETER GIANIODIS, Bank of America (Nations
    Bank); JAMES ULWICK, Kramon and Graham, P.A.;
    GLEN CASE, Howard County Police Department;
    SHARON DENISE JORDAN; STACY GIANIODIS,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge.
    (CA-04-2065-WDQ; CA-04-2031-1-WDQ)

    Submitted:

    November 3, 2004

    Decided:

    November 18, 2004

    Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Daniel L. Spence, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    - 2 -

    PER CURIAM:
    In these consolidated appeals, Daniel L. Spence seeks to
    appeal the district courts denial of relief on his two 42 U.S.C.
    1983 (2000) complaints.
    reversible error.
    district court.

    We have reviewed the record and find no

    Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the


    See Spence v. United States, No. CA-04-2065-WDQ

    (D. Md. July 29, 2004); Spence v. DiBiagio, No. CA-04-2031-1-WDQ


    (D. Md. July 29, 2004).
    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

    - 3 -

    You might also like