Case Name: Steven T. CORBIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lee J. LOFTUS and Jmo Finance Staff, Department of Justice/justice Management Division; Tilton & Bernstein Management, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-11-28
Citations: 671 F. App'x 48
Docket Number: No. 16-1203
Parties: Steven T. CORBIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lee J. LOFTUS and Jmo Finance Staff, Department of Justice/justice Management Division; Tilton & Bernstein Management, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 671
Pages: 48–49

Head Matter:
Steven T. CORBIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lee J. LOFTUS and Jmo Finance Staff, Department of Justice/justice Management Division; Tilton & Bernstein Management, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-1203
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: November 7, 2016
Decided: November 28, 2016
Steven T. Corbin, Appellant Pro Se. Jane Elizabeth Andersen, Office of the United States Attorney, Allen F. Loucks, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee Lee J. Lof-tus and JMO Finance Staff.
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Steven T. Corbin appeals the district court's order granting Lee J. Loftus and JMO Finance Staffs motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and dismissing his complaint as to all parties. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. Corbin v. Loftus, No. 8:15-cv-02118-RWT (D. Md. Nov. 10, 2015). We also deny Corbin's petitions for a writ of mandamus and his pending motions. 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
To the extent that Corbin seeks to challenge the removal of another currently pending civil action, Corbin v. Lynch, No. 8:16-cv-01495-RWT (D. Md. May 18, 2016), his notice of appeal did not designate a decision or judgment in that case, see Fed. R, App. P, 3(c)(1)(B), and there has been no ruling by the district court on a motion to remand.