James B. Mitchell v. United States Marshals Service

74 F.3d 1232, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 38865, 1996 WL 23196
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 23, 1996
Docket95-6862
StatusPublished

This text of 74 F.3d 1232 (James B. Mitchell v. United States Marshals Service) 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
James B. Mitchell v. United States Marshals Service, 74 F.3d 1232, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 38865, 1996 WL 23196 (4th Cir. 1996).

Opinion

74 F.3d 1232
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

James B. MITCHELL, Plaintiff--Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE, Defendant--Appellee.

No. 95-6862.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 11, 1996.
Decided Jan. 23, 1996.

James B. Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se.

Lynn M. Powalski, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.

PER CURIAM

Appellant appeals from the district court's order granting summary judgment to Appellee. We have reviewed the record and find that the district court did not err in concluding that Appellant's complaint failed to state a cognizable claim. However, because Appellant failed to allege misconduct for which the United States has waived its sovereign immunity, the district court should have dismissed Appellant's complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Williams v. United States, 50 F.3d 299, 301, 309-11 (4th Cir.1995). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order as modified to reflect a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1). We 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

Williams v. United States
50 F.3d 299 (Fourth Circuit, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
74 F.3d 1232, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 38865, 1996 WL 23196, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-b-mitchell-v-united-states-marshals-service-ca4-1996.