Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Luginbyhl v. American Correctional, 04-6347 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-6347 Visitors: 18
Filed: Oct. 21, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6347 LEVI LUGINBYHL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus AMERICAN CORRECTIONAL ASSOCIATION, Unknown Members, et al., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-03-3364-AW) Submitted: June 14, 2004 Decided: October 21, 2004 Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6347 LEVI LUGINBYHL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus AMERICAN CORRECTIONAL ASSOCIATION, Unknown Members, et al., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-03-3364-AW) Submitted: June 14, 2004 Decided: October 21, 2004 Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Levi Luginbyhl, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Levi Luginbyhl appeals the denial of his motion for reconsideration of the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint for failure to state a claim. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Luginbyhl v. American Correctional Ass’n., No. CA-03- 3364-AW (D. Md. Feb. 13, 2004). Further, we deny Luginbyhl’s motion for emergency injunction because he did not first present that motion to the district court, and did not allege that it would have been impracticable to do so. See Fed. R. App. P. 8(a)(2)(A)(i). 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