Cases

JUDGMENT PER CURIAM. This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the amended brief and appendix filed by appellant. See Fed. RApp. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed February 24, 2010, dismissing appellant’s complaint for lack of subject

JUDGMENT PER CURIAM. This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the amended brief and appendix filed by appellant. See Fed. RApp. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed February 24, 2010, dismissing appellant’s complaint for lack of subject

PER CURIAM: Demetric Gray Pearson appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Pearson v. Franks, No. CA-05-1739-RDB (D.Md. July 5, 2005). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

PER CURIAM: Demetric Gray Pearson appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Pearson v. Saar, No. CA-03-1705-RDB (D.Md. July 28, 2005). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate

PER CURIAM. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). Demetric Gray Pearson seeks to appeal the district court’s order placing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint on the inactive-unassigned docket. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain inter

PER CURIAM. Demetric Gray Pearson appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for appointment of counsel and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. He renewed his motion for appointment of counsel in this court. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Pearson’s motion for appointment of counsel and affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court.

PER CURIAM. Demetric Gray Pearson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion to add additional allegations to his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93

PER CURIAM. Demetric Gray Pearson seeks to appeal a district court order requiring him to assist the court in effecting service of process. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 *224(2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed. R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., </

345 F.Supp.2d 515 (2003) Demetric Gray PEARSON, # 385-960, v. Stuart O. SIMMS, et al. No. CIV.A. RDB-02-3647. United States District Court, D. Maryland. December 11, 2003. *516 Demetric Gray Pearson, RCI, Jessup, MD, pro se. Gloria Wilson Shelton, State of Maryland Office of Attorney General, Baltimore, MD, J. Joseph Curra

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FILED FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FEB 24 2010 Clerk, U.S. District and DEMETRIC GRAY PEARSON, Bankruptcy Courts Plaintif