Steven Corbin v. Lee J. Loftus and JMO Finance

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for other relief [999933753-2], denying Motion for other relief [999932419-2], denying Motion for other relief [999931438-2], denying Motion for other relief [999915985-2], denying Motion for other relief [999911852-2]; denying Motion to compel [999925615-2], denying Motion to compel [999925609-2], denying Motion to compel [999915638-2]; denying Motion to remand case [999917576-2]; granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999864935-2] Originating case number: 8:15-cv-02118-RWT Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999975638].. [16-1203]

Appeal: 16-1203

Doc: 43

Filed: 11/28/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1203

STEVEN T. CORBIN,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
LEE J. LOFTUS AND JMO FINANCE STAFF, Department of
Justice/Justice Management Division; TILTON & BERNSTEIN
MANAGEMENT,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge.
(8:15-cv-02118-RWT)

Submitted:

November 7, 2016

Decided:

November 28, 2016

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steven
OFFICE
United
Loftus

T. Corbin, Appellant Pro Se. Jane Elizabeth Andersen,
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Allen F. Loucks, Assistant
States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee Lee J.
and JMO Finance Staff.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1203

Doc: 43

Filed: 11/28/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Steven

T.

Corbin

appeals

the

district

court’s

order

granting Lee J. Loftus and JMO Finance Staff’s motion to dismiss
pursuant

to

Fed.

R.

Civ.

P.

complaint as to all parties.
find

no

proceed

reversible
in

forma

and

dismissing

his

We have reviewed the record and

error.

pauperis

12(b)(6)

Accordingly,
and

affirm

reasons stated by the district court. *
8:15-cv-02118-RWT (D. Md. Nov. 10, 2015).

we

grant

leave

substantially

for

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the

Corbin v. Loftus, No.
We also deny Corbin’s

petitions for a writ of mandamus and his pending motions.
dispense

to

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

*

To the extent that Corbin seeks to challenge the removal
of another currently pending civil action, Corbin v. Lynch, No.
8:16-cv-01495-RWT (D. Md. May 18, 2016), his notice of appeal
did not designate a decision or judgment in that case, see Fed.
R. App. P. 3(c)(1)(B), and there has been no ruling by the
district court on a motion to remand.

2