Case Name: Daniel L. SPENCE, a/k/a Daniel Johnson, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee; Daniel L. Spence, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Thomas Dibiagio, United States Attorney; John J. Barry, Federal Bureau of Investigations; Peter Gianiodis, Bank of America (Nations Bank); James Ulwick, Kramon and Graham, P.A.; Glen Case, Howard County Police Department; Sharon Denise Jordan; Stacy Gianiodis, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-11-18
Citations: 112 F. App'x 929
Docket Number: Nos. 04-7394, 04-7526
Parties: Daniel L. SPENCE, a/k/a Daniel Johnson, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant—Appellee. Daniel L. Spence, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Thomas Dibiagio, United States Attorney; John J. Barry, Federal Bureau of Investigations; Peter Gianiodis, Bank of America (Nations Bank); James Ulwick, Kramon and Graham, P.A.; Glen Case, Howard County Police Department; Sharon Denise Jordan; Stacy Gianiodis, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 112
Pages: 929–929

Head Matter:
Daniel L. SPENCE, a/k/a Daniel Johnson, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant—Appellee. Daniel L. Spence, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Thomas Dibiagio, United States Attorney; John J. Barry, Federal Bureau of Investigations; Peter Gianiodis, Bank of America (Nations Bank); James Ulwick, Kramon and Graham, P.A.; Glen Case, Howard County Police Department; Sharon Denise Jordan; Stacy Gianiodis, Defendants—Appellees.
Nos. 04-7394, 04-7526.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 3, 2004.
Decided Nov. 18, 2004.
Daniel L. Spence, Appellant pro se.
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Daniel L. Spence seeks to appeal the district court's denial of relief on his two 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaints. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Spence v. United States, No. CA-04-2065-WDQ (D.Md. July 29, 2004); Spence v. DiBiagio, No. CA-04-2031-1-WDQ (D.Md. July 29, 2004). 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