Akinro v. Maryland

39 F. App'x 877
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJuly 8, 2002
DocketNo. 01-2405
StatusPublished

This text of 39 F. App'x 877 (Akinro v. Maryland) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Akinro v. Maryland, 39 F. App'x 877 (4th Cir. 2002).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Francis Akinro appeals the district court’s order denying reconsideration of its sua sponte dismissal of his civil complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(e) (West Supp.2002). Athough § 1915(e) did not apply because Akinro did not proceed in forma pauperis, we find that the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the complaint. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3); see Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 537-38, 94 S.Ct. 1372, 39 L.Ed.2d 577 (1974).

We accordingly affirm as modified to reflect dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3). We deny AMnro’s motions for oral argument and general relief, and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Hagans v. Lavine
415 U.S. 528 (Supreme Court, 1974)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
39 F. App'x 877, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/akinro-v-maryland-ca4-2002.