Alexander Matthews v. Timothy Sullivan

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:14-cv-00500-FPS Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999513943]. Mailed to: Matthews. [14-7347]

Appeal: 14-7347

Doc: 10

Filed: 01/21/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7347

ALEXANDER OTIS MATTHEWS,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
TIMOTHY JOSEPH SULLIVAN; LIAM O’GRADY, U.S. District Court
Judge; ROGER W. TITUS, U.S. District Court Judge,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (8:14-cv-00500-FPS)

Submitted:

January 15, 2015

Decided:

January 21, 2015

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alexander Matthews, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7347

Doc: 10

Filed: 01/21/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Alexander Matthews appeals the district court’s orders
denying

relief

on

his

complaint

and

amended

complaint

filed

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) and Bivens v. Six Unknown
Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)
and

denial

of

his

Fed.

R.

Civ.

P.

motion. *

59(e)

reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
we

affirm

for

the

reasons

stated

by

the

We

have

Accordingly,

district

court.

Matthews v. Sullivan, No. 8:14-cv-00500-FPS (D. Md. May 23 &
Aug. 13, 2014).
facts

and

materials

legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the
contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

*

In his motion for reconsideration and on appeal, Matthews
asserts that the court should have considered some of his claims
as common law professional malpractice, negligence, and gross
negligence claims.

2