Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Dukuly v. Woodmen World Life, 00-7484 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-7484 Visitors: 30
Filed: Mar. 01, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7484 MEL MADOU DUKULY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WOODMEN OF THE WORLD LIFE INSURANCE SOCIETY; WILLIAM GROCE, sued under color of state law and in his individual capacity; C. WALLS, De- tective, #1398, sued in his official and indi- vidual capacity; PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT, sued as a municipality county gov- ernment in the state of Maryland, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7484 MEL MADOU DUKULY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WOODMEN OF THE WORLD LIFE INSURANCE SOCIETY; WILLIAM GROCE, sued under color of state law and in his individual capacity; C. WALLS, De- tective, #1398, sued in his official and indi- vidual capacity; PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT, sued as a municipality county gov- ernment in the state of Maryland, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-99- 1694-AMD) Submitted: February 22, 2001 Decided: March 1, 2001 Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mel Madou Dukuly, Appellant Pro Se. Jeffrey Peabody Ayres, Robin Bruckmann Bowerfind, VENABLE, BAETJER & HOWARD, Baltimore, Mary- land; Sean Daniel Wallace, John Anthony Bielec, Shalisha Hines Ivy, Rhonda Lee Weaver, COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Upper Marlboro, Mary- land, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Mel Madou Dukuly appeals the district court’s order dismissing this 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) action. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Dukuly v. Woodmen of the World Life Ins. Soc’y, No. CA- 99-1694-AMD (D. Md. Sept. 18, 2000). We dispense with oral argu- ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre- sented 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