Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Dockery v. Prince George's Cnty, 02-1259 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-1259 Visitors: 22
Filed: Jul. 31, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1259 JASPER LLOYD DOCKERY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY COMMISSIONER; THE HIGHEST OFFICIAL OF ITS BUREAU OF CHILD SOCIAL SERVICES; KAREN LYNCH; THERESA DABULIS; CHURCHILL COWELL; MAY CATTERTON; BRENDA DODSON; RUTH JOYNER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA- 00-3548-PJM) Submitted: July
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1259 JASPER LLOYD DOCKERY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY COMMISSIONER; THE HIGHEST OFFICIAL OF ITS BUREAU OF CHILD SOCIAL SERVICES; KAREN LYNCH; THERESA DABULIS; CHURCHILL COWELL; MAY CATTERTON; BRENDA DODSON; RUTH JOYNER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA- 00-3548-PJM) Submitted: July 25, 2002 Decided: July 31, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jasper Lloyd Dockery, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Carol Ann Smith, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Jasper Lloyd Dockery appeals the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion seeking reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2002) complaint. 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. Dockery v. Prince George’s County Comm’r, No. CA-00-3548-PJM (D. Md. filed Jan. 29, 2002 & entered Feb. 4, 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
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