Filed: Jun. 14, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1244 MICHAEL J. SINDRAM, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COLUMBIA UNION COLLEGE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge; Charles B. Day, Magistrate Judge. (CA-01-2954-S) Submitted: May 30, 2002 Decided: June 14, 2002 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michae
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1244 MICHAEL J. SINDRAM, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COLUMBIA UNION COLLEGE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge; Charles B. Day, Magistrate Judge. (CA-01-2954-S) Submitted: May 30, 2002 Decided: June 14, 2002 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1244 MICHAEL J. SINDRAM, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COLUMBIA UNION COLLEGE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge; Charles B. Day, Magistrate Judge. (CA-01-2954-S) Submitted: May 30, 2002 Decided: June 14, 2002 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael J. Sindram, Appellant Pro Se. Lauri Elizabeth Cleary, Peter M. Rosenberg, LERCH, EARLY & BREWER, Bethesda, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Michael J. Sindram appeals the district court’s order denying leave to file his civil rights complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s memorandum opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Sindram v. Columbia Union Coll., No. CA-01-2954-S (D. Md. Feb. 27, 2002). 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
