Case ID: f-appx_39/html/0877-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Francis AKINRO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of MARYLAND, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 01-2405.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted June 19, 2002.
    Decided July 8, 2002.
    Francis AMnro, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before NIEMEYER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed as modified by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.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.