Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Gilland Roby v. Roby, 02-2023 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-2023 Visitors: 37
Filed: Feb. 26, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2023 ERIN GILLAND ROBY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RANDOLPH ROBY; ESTATE OF NEIL O. ROBY; EVA SOWELL ROBY; HOWARD COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT; MARYLAND MOTOR VEHICLE ADMINISTRATION; REGISTER OF WILLS FOR HOWARD COUNTY, Defendants - Appellees, and HOWARD COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; CHARLES M. CAVE, Sheriff of Howard County, Maryland, Defendants. HOWARD COUNTY GOVERNMENT; ANNE FERRO; KAY HARTLEB, Movants. Appeal from the Uni
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2023 ERIN GILLAND ROBY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RANDOLPH ROBY; ESTATE OF NEIL O. ROBY; EVA SOWELL ROBY; HOWARD COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT; MARYLAND MOTOR VEHICLE ADMINISTRATION; REGISTER OF WILLS FOR HOWARD COUNTY, Defendants - Appellees, and HOWARD COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; CHARLES M. CAVE, Sheriff of Howard County, Maryland, Defendants. HOWARD COUNTY GOVERNMENT; ANNE FERRO; KAY HARTLEB, Movants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, Chief District Judge. (CA-01-1413-L) Submitted: February 20, 2003 Decided: February 26, 2003 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Erin Gilland Roby, Appellant Pro Se. Robert L. Fila, LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT L. FILA, Columbia, Maryland; Barbara McFaul Cook, County Solicitor, Rebecca Ann Laws, COUNTY SOLICITOR’S OFFICE, Ellicott City, Maryland; John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Susan Penny Whiteford, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland; Leight Douglas Collins, Assistant Attorney General, Glen Burnie, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Erin Gilland Roby appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint and denying various interlocutory and post-judgment motions. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Roby v. Roby, No. CA-01-1413- L (D. Md. Jan. 28, 2002; Apr. 5, 2002; Aug. 6, 2002; filed Aug. 14, 2002, entered Aug. 15, 2002; filed Sept. 3, 2002, entered Sept. 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