U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2006

Prevenslik v. United States Patent & Trademark Office

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided May 24, 2006 · Luttig, Gregory, Shedd

182 F. App'x 197

Counsel

Thomas V. Prevenslik, Appellant Pro Se. Gerard John Mene, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees.

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite this decision.

Banks v. Lappin (District Court, District of Columbia 2009)
Banks v. Lappin (District Court, District of Columbia 2009)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

*198 PER CURIAM:

Thomas V. Prevenslik appeals the district court’s order denying relief on this qui tarn action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Prevenslik v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, No. CA-05-498-TSE-LO (E.D. Va. June 16, 2005). We deny the motion for appointment of counsel and 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

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.