Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Williams v. Hancock, 00-2485 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-2485 Visitors: 22
Filed: Jul. 27, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2485 MICHAEL B. WILLIAMS; LISA WILLIAMS; BELTWAY PAVING COMPANY, INCORPORATED; BELTWAY TRUCK & TIRE, INCORPORATED, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus ROY E. HANCOCK; MELVIN C. BEALL, JR.; MARLAND DEEN; COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF CHARLES COUNTY, MARYLAND, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA- 00-2221-PJM) Submitted: J
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2485 MICHAEL B. WILLIAMS; LISA WILLIAMS; BELTWAY PAVING COMPANY, INCORPORATED; BELTWAY TRUCK & TIRE, INCORPORATED, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus ROY E. HANCOCK; MELVIN C. BEALL, JR.; MARLAND DEEN; COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF CHARLES COUNTY, MARYLAND, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA- 00-2221-PJM) Submitted: June 29, 2001 Decided: July 27, 2001 Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, and WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Shawn C. Whittaker, SILVERMAN & ASSOCIATES, CHARTERED, N. Bethesda, Maryland, for Appellant. John F. Breads, Columbia, Maryland; John A. Buchanan, OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY FOR CHARLES COUNTY, La Plata, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Michael B. Williams and related Appellants appeal the district court’s order dismissing their civil action alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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 Williams v. Hancock, No. CA-00-2221-PJM (D. Md. filed Oct 24, 2000; entered Oct. 25, 2000) (dismissing for reasons as stated in open court). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten- tions 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