HARRIOT v. UNITED STATES FBI (2020)

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

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.   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, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 104 L.Ed.2d 318 (1989).

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.