Alexander Matthews v. US

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:12-cv-01473-LO-TCB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999588755]. Mailed to: Alexander Matthews. [15-6132]

Appeal: 15-6132

Doc: 15

Filed: 05/22/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6132

ALEXANDER OTIS MATTHEWS,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
RYAN FAULCONER, AUSA; CARLA COOPWOOD, U.S. Probation
Officer; BENNETT BROWN, Attorney; CHRISTINE WINDNESS, FBI
Special Agent; JOHN DOE, Unknown Agent of Maryland State
Attys. Office; JANE DOE, Unknown named agents of Maryland
State
Attys.
Office;
MICHAEL
PAUZE,
AUSA;
ALICIA
WOJTKONSKI, FBI Special Agent; ROD ROSENSTEIN, in His
Official Capacity; NEIL MCBRIDE, in His Official Capacity;
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND US ATTORNEYS OFFICE, in its Official
Capacity; EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA (ALEXANDRIA) US
ATTORNEYS OFFICE, in its Official Capacity; BENNETT BROWN,
in his Individual Capacity; RYAN FAULCONER, In his
Individual Capacity,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Liam O’Grady, District
Judge. (1:12-cv-01473-LO-TCB)

Submitted:

May 19, 2015

Decided: May 22, 2015

Appeal: 15-6132

Doc: 15

Filed: 05/22/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

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

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alexander Matthews, Appellant Pro Se. Ayana Niambi Free,
Assistant United States Attorney, Sosun Bae, Andrew Sun Han,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 15-6132

Doc: 15

Filed: 05/22/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Alexander

Matthews

appeals

the

district

court’s

order

granting the United States’ motion to dismiss his Federal Tort
Claims Act suit for lack of jurisdiction.
record and find no reversible error.

We have reviewed the

Accordingly, we affirm for

the reasons stated by the district court.

Matthews v. United

States, No. 1:12-cv-01473-LO-TCB (E.D. Va. Jan. 13, 2015).
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3