Court Opinion

ID: 9945478
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-27 21:01:13.622314+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:30.524136
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-2249      Doc: 11         Filed: 02/26/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-2249

        ANTHONY R. GANTT,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        UNITED STATES 118TH LEGISLATIVE BRANCH OF THE UNITED STATES
        FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 2021-2023; UNITED STATES 113TH
        LEGISLATIVE BRANCH OF THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL
        GOVERNMENT 2013-2015; UNITED STATES 118TH LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
        OF THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 2003-2005; UNITED
        STATES 103RD LEGISLATIVE BRANCH OF THE UNITED STATES
        FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 1995-1997,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
        Deborah Lynn Boardman, District Judge. (8:23-cv-02652-DLB)

        Submitted: February 22, 2024                                 Decided: February 26, 2024

        Before NIEMEYER and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Anthony R. Gantt, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-2249         Doc: 11     Filed: 02/26/2024     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Anthony Gantt appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint as

        frivolous for failure to identify a plausible cause of action. We have reviewed the record

        and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Gantt v.

        U.S. 118th Legis. Branch of the U.S. Fed. Gov’t 2021-2023, 8:23-cv-02652 (D. Md. Nov.

        2, 2023). 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

                                                    2