Steven Corbin v. Lee J. Loftus and JMO Finance, No. 16-1203 (4th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1203 STEVEN T. CORBIN, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. LEE J. LOFTUS AND JMO FINANCE STAFF, Department of Justice/Justice Management Division; TILTON & BERNSTEIN MANAGEMENT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge. (8:15-cv-02118-RWT) Submitted: November 7, 2016 Decided: November 28, 2016 Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven OFFICE United Loftus T. Corbin, Appellant Pro Se. Jane Elizabeth Andersen, OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Allen F. Loucks, Assistant States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee Lee J. and JMO Finance Staff. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 Staff’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. complaint as to all parties. find no proceed reversible in forma and dismissing his We have reviewed the record and error. pauperis 12(b)(6) Accordingly, and affirm reasons stated by the district court. * 8:15-cv-02118-RWT (D. Md. Nov. 10, 2015). we grant leave substantially for with contentions are oral argument adequately because presented in the Corbin v. Loftus, No. We also deny Corbin’s petitions for a writ of mandamus and his pending motions. dispense to the the facts We and legal 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. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.