Filed: Sep. 14, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1768 MICHAEL J. SINDRAM, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PRESIDENTIAL TOWERS CONDOMINIUM; ALFREDA DEMOSS; TONY MARTELLA; DARRYL R. POLLOCK, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-1493-AW) Submitted: September 9, 2004 Decided: September 14, 2004 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismis
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1768 MICHAEL J. SINDRAM, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PRESIDENTIAL TOWERS CONDOMINIUM; ALFREDA DEMOSS; TONY MARTELLA; DARRYL R. POLLOCK, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-1493-AW) Submitted: September 9, 2004 Decided: September 14, 2004 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismiss..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1768 MICHAEL J. SINDRAM, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PRESIDENTIAL TOWERS CONDOMINIUM; ALFREDA DEMOSS; TONY MARTELLA; DARRYL R. POLLOCK, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-1493-AW) Submitted: September 9, 2004 Decided: September 14, 2004 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael J. Sindram, Appellant Pro Se. Jeffrey Roger Schmieler, SAUNDERS & SCHMIELER, Silver Springs, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 his motion for clarification and modification of order and for related relief. We have reviewed the record and dismiss the appeal as frivolous. 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. DISMISSED - 2 -
