Case Name: Dante LINTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE; Drug Enforcement Administration, Defendants-Appellees; Dante Linton, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. United States Marshals Service; Drug Enforcement Administration, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-08-15
Citations: 235 F. App'x 59
Docket Number: Nos. 06-7992, 07-6106
Parties: Dante LINTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE; Drug Enforcement Administration, Defendants-Appellees. Dante Linton, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. United States Marshals Service; Drug Enforcement Administration, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 235
Pages: 59–60

Head Matter:
Dante LINTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE; Drug Enforcement Administration, Defendants-Appellees. Dante Linton, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. United States Marshals Service; Drug Enforcement Administration, Defendants-Appellees.
Nos. 06-7992, 07-6106.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 31, 2007.
Decided: Aug. 15, 2007.
Dante Linton, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Charles Kay, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Dante Linton appeals the district court's orders granting summary judgment in favor of Appellees in this civil action, in which Linton sought the return of certain property and to set aside an administrative forfeiture. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court in its orders and at the hearing held on January 11, 2007. Linton v. U.S. Marshals Serv., No. 1:05-cv-02859-RDB (D. Md. Oct. 24, 2006; filed Jan. 16, 2007 & entered Jan. 18, 2007). We grant Linton's motion to file a supplemental informal brief 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.