Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Martin v. Goodman, 00-7284 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-7284 Visitors: 23
Filed: Feb. 28, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7284 TIMOTHY J. MARTIN, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus OFFICER GOODMAN, 2960; CORPORAL HAMILTON, 3154; OFFICER GRIFFITH, 2905, Defendants - Appellees, and K-9 BRUTUS, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-99-3159-AW) Submitted: February 22, 2001 Decided: February 28, 2001 Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7284 TIMOTHY J. MARTIN, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus OFFICER GOODMAN, 2960; CORPORAL HAMILTON, 3154; OFFICER GRIFFITH, 2905, Defendants - Appellees, and K-9 BRUTUS, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-99-3159-AW) Submitted: February 22, 2001 Decided: February 28, 2001 Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Timothy J. Martin, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Jeffrey Grant Cook, BAL- TIMORE COUNTY OFFICE OF LAW, Towson, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Timothy J. Martin, Sr., appeals the district court’s order de- nying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and orders and find no reversible error.* Accordingly, we deny Mar- tin’s motion for appointment of counsel and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Martin v. Goodman, No. CA-99-3159-AW (D. Md. Aug. 24, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED * The district court entered its order granting summary judgment for Defendants prior to the expiration of the time Martin was given to file a reply to the Defendants’ supplement to the motion. However, because Martin subsequently filed his response and the district court thoroughly reviewed it, any error was harmless. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 61. 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