Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Adams v. Mayor and City Coun, 02-1556 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-1556 Visitors: 2
Filed: Oct. 16, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1556 MARK J. ADAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE, a municipal corporation; PAUL GRAZIANO, in his capacity as Executive Director of the Housing Authority for Baltimore City, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-02- 1608-MJG) Submitted: October 10, 2002 Decided: October 16, 200
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1556 MARK J. ADAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE, a municipal corporation; PAUL GRAZIANO, in his capacity as Executive Director of the Housing Authority for Baltimore City, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-02- 1608-MJG) Submitted: October 10, 2002 Decided: October 16, 2002 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark J. Adams, Appellant Pro Se. William Fitts Ryan, Jr., WHITEFORD, TAYLOR & PRESTON, Baltimore, Maryland; Thurman Wilbert Zollicoffer, Jr., City Solicitor, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Mark J. Adams appeals the district court’s order granting the Defendants’ motion to dismiss his civil action based on lack of standing. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Adams v. Mayor of Baltimore, No. CA-02-1608-MJG (D. Md. filed May 23, 2002 & entered May 24, 2002). We deny the Appellees’ motion for summary disposition. 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