No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Lewis
v.
United States
v.
United States
Unpublished
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-2836
WILLIAM M. LEWIS, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
JAMES R. SPENCER, District Judge; FEDERAL
COURTS, EASTERN DISTRICT; FEDERAL COURTS,
EASTERN DISTRICT AND ITS APPEALS OF VIRGINIA,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-98-467-3)
Submitted: April 15, 1999 Decided: April 21, 1999
Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William M. Lewis, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Joan Elizabeth Evans, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-2836
WILLIAM M. LEWIS, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
JAMES R. SPENCER, District Judge; FEDERAL
COURTS, EASTERN DISTRICT; FEDERAL COURTS,
EASTERN DISTRICT AND ITS APPEALS OF VIRGINIA,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-98-467-3)
Submitted: April 15, 1999 Decided: April 21, 1999
Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William M. Lewis, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Joan Elizabeth Evans, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
William M. Lewis, Jr., appeals the district court’s order dis- missing his complaint under the Federal Torts Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1) (1994). Because the defendants are absolutely immune from suit for damages, we affirm the district court’s order. See
28 U.S.C. § 2674 (1994); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978); King v. Meyers, 973 F.2d 354 (4th Cir. 1992). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate- ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
[*2]