eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
 2020-02

Michael Harriot v. United States ( 2020 )


Menu:
 
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-7511
MICHAEL OWEN HARRIOT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES, (Federal Bureau of Investigation “FBI”),
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:19-cv-02482-JFA)
Submitted: February 20, 2020                                 Decided: February 26, 2020
Before AGEE, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Owen Harriot, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Owen Harriot appeals the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
(2018) his complaint filed pursuant to the Federal Torts Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1346(b), 2671-80 (2018). “[W]e may affirm a district court’s ruling on any ground
apparent in the record.” United States ex rel. Drakeford v. Tuomey,
    792 F.3d 364
    , 375 (4th
Cir. 2015). A federal court may sua sponte dismiss a complaint as barred by the statute of
limitations on initial review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (2018). Eriline Co. S.A. v.
Johnson,
    440 F.3d 648
    , 656-57 (4th Cir. 2006); Nasim v. Warden, Md. House of Corr.,
    64 F.3d 951
    , 954-55 (4th Cir. 1995) (en banc). We affirm the district court’s order because
Harriot’s claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. * See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2401(b) (2018). We deny Harriot’s motion for a certified copy of the arrest warrant. 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
*
We also discern no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decisions denying
Harriot’s request to appoint counsel and Harriot’s motion for recusal. See Belue v.
Leventhal,
    640 F.3d 567
    , 573 (4th Cir. 2011); Whisenant v. Yuam,
    739 F.2d 160
    , 163 (4th
Cir. 1984), abrogated on other grounds by Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for S. Dist. of Iowa,
    490 U.S. 296 
    (1989).
2