Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07511/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07511-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7511

MICHAEL OWEN HARRIOT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES, (Federal Bureau of Investigation “FBI”),

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:19-cv-02482-JFA)

Submitted: February 20, 2020 Decided: February 26, 2020

Before AGEE, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Owen Harriot, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7511 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/26/2020 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Owen Harriot appeals the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) 

(2018) his complaint filed pursuant to the Federal Torts Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1346(b), 2671-80 (2018). “[W]e may affirm a district court’s ruling on any ground 

apparent in the record.” United States ex rel. Drakeford v. Tuomey, 792 F.3d 364, 375 (4th 

Cir. 2015). A federal court may sua sponte dismiss a complaint as barred by the statute of 

limitations on initial review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (2018). Eriline Co. S.A. v. 

Johnson, 440 F.3d 648, 656-57 (4th Cir. 2006); Nasim v. Warden, Md. House of Corr., 64 

F.3d 951, 954-55 (4th Cir. 1995) (en banc). We affirm the district court’s order because 

Harriot’s claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations.*

 See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2401(b) (2018). We deny Harriot’s motion for a certified copy of the arrest warrant. 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

 * We also discern no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decisions denying 

Harriot’s request to appoint counsel and Harriot’s motion for recusal. See Belue v. 

Leventhal, 640 F.3d 567, 573 (4th Cir. 2011); Whisenant v. Yuam, 739 F.2d 160, 163 (4th 

Cir. 1984), abrogated on other grounds by Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for S. Dist. of Iowa, 

490 U.S. 296 (1989).

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7511 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/26/2020 Pg: 2 of 2