Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Bush v. Prince George County, 00-1368 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-1368 Visitors: 7
Filed: May 02, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1368 BARBARA M. BUSH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY; STATE OF MARYLAND; LESLIE SEID MARGOLIS; STEVEN SIMONE; KAREN LYNCH; JALAL GREENE, Director, Maryland State Department of Housing and Community Develop- ment; FRANKLIN JOHNSON; BLAKE FETROW; LEGAL AID BUREAU, INCORPORATED; RUBY BURRELL, Direc- tor; NANCY GLASNICK, Superintendent, Maryland Department of Education Rehabilitation Ser- vices; ANDREW CUOMO
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1368 BARBARA M. BUSH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY; STATE OF MARYLAND; LESLIE SEID MARGOLIS; STEVEN SIMONE; KAREN LYNCH; JALAL GREENE, Director, Maryland State Department of Housing and Community Develop- ment; FRANKLIN JOHNSON; BLAKE FETROW; LEGAL AID BUREAU, INCORPORATED; RUBY BURRELL, Direc- tor; NANCY GLASNICK, Superintendent, Maryland Department of Education Rehabilitation Ser- vices; ANDREW CUOMO, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; DONNA SHALALA, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA- 00-597-CCB) Submitted: April 27, 2000 Decided: May 2, 2000 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Barbara M. Bush, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Barbara M. Bush appeals from the district court’s order dis- missing her civil rights complaint alleging violations “of the Americans with Disabilities Act . . . and other federal and state laws.” We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opin- ion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Bush v. Prince George County, No. CA-00-597-CCB (D. Md. Mar. 6, 2000). 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 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer