The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
21-1688•Jerome Brown v. Thor Smith; Laura Rackey; Sharon Cecil; Fredric Einhorn
21-1688Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJan 18, 2022
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-1688
JEROME BROWN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
THOR SMITH; LAURA RACKEY; SHARON CECIL; FREDRIC EINHORN,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge. (8:21-cv-01178-TDC)
Submitted: January 7, 2022 Decided: January 18, 2022
Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jerome Julius Brown, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Jerome Brown appeals the district court’s orders requiring him to show cause why
the court had subject matter jurisdiction over this civil case and dismissing the action for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Brown v.
Smith, No. 8:21-cv-01178-TDC (D. Md. June 3, 2021; May 14, 2021); see also Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(h)(3); Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006); United States ex rel.
Carson v. Manor Care, Inc., 851 F.3d 293, 303 (4th Cir. 2017). 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 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.