Milreace Malone v. Lewisburg, USP

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis [1000201877-2] Originating case number: 1:17-cv-02471-ELH. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000258368]. Mailed to: M. Malone. [17-2266]

Appeal: 17-2266

Doc: 9

Filed: 03/15/2018

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-2266

MILREACE MALONE, Rickey Malone,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LEWISBURG, USP; WARDEN, Regional Office of P.A.; DRESSLER, Mr.;
HENDRICKS, Mr.,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge. (1:17-cv-02471-ELH)

Submitted: March 13, 2018

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Milreace Malone, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Decided: March 15, 2018

Appeal: 17-2266

Doc: 9

Filed: 03/15/2018

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Milreace Malone appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil action for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (2012). ∗ We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we grant Malone’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. Malone v. Lewisburg, USP, No. 1:17-cv-02471-ELH
(D. Md. filed Oct. 23, 2017 & entered Oct. 24, 2017). We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

∗

Although the district court dismissed the action without prejudice, the district
court’s order is final and appealable under Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807
F.3d 619, 623 (4th Cir. 2015), and Martin v. Duffy, 858 F.3d 239, 247 (4th Cir. 2017)
(“repeated, ineffective attempts at amendment suggest that further amendment of the
complaint would be futile”).

2