Carl Washington, Jr. v. National Reconnaissance Office

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1785 CARL THURSTON WASHINGTON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE (NRO); FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION; BERKELEY COUNTY, WV; CITY OF MARTINSBURG, WV; BLACKWELL REALTY; POTOMAC HOUSING REALTY; CHRISTOPHER CODY, 908 Florida Avenue Martinsburg WV 25402 Property Owner; MICHELLE CODY, 908 Florida Avenue Martinsburg WV 25402 Property Owner; HAINES AGENCY; UNKNOWN NAMED AGENTS OF THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, Defendants - Appellees, and DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES (DCJS); UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICES; DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL; CIA OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL; FBI CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES; UNIVERSAL SERVICES OF AMERICA; SHULTZ REALTY; JC SMITH LLC, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (3:16-cv-00022-JPB-RWT) Submitted: September 29, 2016 Decided: October 3, 2016 Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carl Thurston Washington, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Erin K. Reisenweber, Assistant United States Attorney; Matthew Robert Whitler, PULLIN, FOWLER, FLANAGAN, BROWN & POE, PLLC; Floyd McKinley Sayre, III, BOWLES RICE, LLP; Kenneth Joseph Barton, Jr., Kelsey L. Swaim, Eric Jett Hulett, STEPTOE & JOHNSON, LLP, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Carl Thurston Washington, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his complaint alleging defamation, assault, fraud, property damage, and violations of his civil rights, among other claims. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Washington v. Nat’l Reconnaissance Office, No. 3:16-cv-00022-JPB-RWT (N.D. W. Va. June 27, 2016). 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 3