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)
03-2180•United States of America, Ex Rel. Thomas v. PREVENSLIK, Pro se bringing this action on behalf of the United States of America
03-2180Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitMar 15, 2004
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-2180
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, EX REL. THOMAS V.
PREVENSLIK, Pro se bringing this action on
behalf of the United States of America,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON; UNIVERSITY OF
ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN; UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA; LAWRENCE LIVERMORE LABORATORY;
LAWRENCE CRUM; KENNETH SUSLICK; SETH
PUTTERMAN; WILLIAM MOSS; ANDREAS PROSPERETTI;
THE JOHNS HOPKINS HOSPITAL,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District Judge.
(CA-02-1-80-MJG)
Submitted: February 2, 2004 Decided: March 15, 2004
Before LUTTIG, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas V. Prevenslik, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Phillip Charrow,
GREENBERG, TRAURIG, L.L.P., Washington, D.C., Susan Martielli,
JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
-- 1 of 3 --
- 2 -
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 2 of 3 --
- 3 -
PER CURIAM:
Thomas V. Prevenslik appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his action filed pursuant to the False Claims Act. We
have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. See United States of America, Ex Rel Prevenslik v.
University of Wash., No. CA-02-1-80-MJG (D. Md. filed June 20,
2003; entered June 23, 2003). We deny the motions for oral
argument and for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
-- 3 of 3 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.