Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Roberto v. Bell, 01-2034 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-2034 Visitors: 11
Filed: Mar. 04, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-2034 MUZIO B. ROBERTO; MARY K. ROBERTO, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus ROSALYN BELL, Circuit Court Judge, Montgomery County, Maryland; VINCENT FERRETTI, Circuit Court Judge, Montgomery County, Maryland; ANN HARRINGTON, Circuit Court Judge, Montgomery County, Maryland; PAUL WEINSTEIN, Circuit Court Judge, Montgomery County, Maryland; LOUISE SCRIVNER, Circuit Court Judge, Mont- gomery County, Maryland, Defendants - Appellees
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-2034 MUZIO B. ROBERTO; MARY K. ROBERTO, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus ROSALYN BELL, Circuit Court Judge, Montgomery County, Maryland; VINCENT FERRETTI, Circuit Court Judge, Montgomery County, Maryland; ANN HARRINGTON, Circuit Court Judge, Montgomery County, Maryland; PAUL WEINSTEIN, Circuit Court Judge, Montgomery County, Maryland; LOUISE SCRIVNER, Circuit Court Judge, Mont- gomery County, Maryland, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-00-1438-AW) Submitted: February 21, 2002 Decided: March 4, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Muzio B. Roberto, Mary K. Roberto, Appellants Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Muzio B. Roberto and Mary K. Roberto appeal from the district court’s order denying their motion to reconsider a prior order dismissing their civil action against several Maryland state court judges. 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. Roberto v. Bell, No. CA-00-1438- AW (D. Md. July 12, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials 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