Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01500/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01500-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Christopher Chin-Young
Appellant
Kathleen D. Cole
Appellee
Nicole DeCrescenzo
Appellee
Loretta E. Lynch
Appellee
Denise S. Price
Appellee
Gary L. Rowell
Appellee
William D. Spencer
Appellee
U.S. Attorney
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1500

CHRISTOPHER CHIN-YOUNG,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

GARY L. ROWELL, Department of the Army; LORETTA E. LYNCH, 

Attorney General; U.S. ATTORNEY, of the United States;

WILLIAM D. SPENCER; KATHLEEN D. COLE; DENISE S. PRICE; 

NICOLE DECRESCENZO,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge. 

(8:13-cv-03772-RWT)

Submitted: October 30, 2015 Decided: November 30, 2015

Before DUNCAN and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher Chin-Young, Appellant Pro Se. Tarra DeShields 

Minnis, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, 

Maryland, for Appellees. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1500 Doc: 14 Filed: 11/30/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Chin-Young appeals the district court’s orders 

dismissing his civil action and denying his motions for 

reconsideration.* We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the 

reasons stated by the district court. Chin-Young v. Powell, No. 

8:13-cv-03772-RWT (D. Md. Apr. 2, 2015; May 7, 2015; May 19, 

2015). 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 construe Chin-Young’s informal brief as a timely notice 

of appeal from the orders denying his motions for 

reconsideration. See Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 248-49 

(1992); Hughes v. Halifax Cnty. Sch. Bd., 823 F.2d 832, 834-35 

(4th Cir. 1987).

Appeal: 15-1500 Doc: 14 Filed: 11/30/2015 Pg: 2 of 2