Case Name: Michael J. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; Harly G. Lapin; Kim White; B.G. Compton; Jerry Jones; Strickland; Officer Story; G. Cooper; Officer Giddins; Officer Mollica; Jessica Jones; Officer Torres; Officer Bourque; R. Flanary; Officer Johnson; Officer Eldridge; Officer Marques; Harrell Watts, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-10-19
Citations: 145 F. App'x 835
Docket Number: No. 05-6692
Parties: Michael J. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; Harly G. Lapin; Kim White; B.G. Compton; Jerry Jones; Strickland; Officer Story; G. Cooper; Officer Giddins; Officer Mollica; Jessica Jones; Officer Torres; Officer Bourque; R. Flanary; Officer Johnson; Officer Eldridge; Officer Marques; Harrell Watts, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 145
Pages: 835–836

Head Matter:
Michael J. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; Harly G. Lapin; Kim White; B.G. Compton; Jerry Jones; Strickland; Officer Story; G. Cooper; Officer Giddins; Officer Mollica; Jessica Jones; Officer Torres; Officer Bourque; R. Flanary; Officer Johnson; Officer Eldridge; Officer Marques; Harrell Watts, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 05-6692.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 23, 2005.
Decided Oct. 19, 2005.
Michael J. Williams, Appellant Pro Se.
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Michael J. Williams appeals the district court's order dismissing without prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(2) (2000), his complaint filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346, et seq., 2671-2680 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant Williams' motion to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm the district court's order for the reasons stated by the district court. See Williams v. United States, No. CA-05-202-7-JCT (W.D.Va. Apr. 26, 2005). 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