Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Kimble v. State of MD, 04-1874 (2005)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-1874 Visitors: 14
Filed: Feb. 01, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1874 JOHN B. KIMBLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS; ROBERT L. ERLICH, JR., Governor; R. KARL AUMANN, Secretary of State; JOHN WILLIS, Secretary of State; ADMINISTRATIVE STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS; NANCY KOPP, in her official capacity as Secretary of State, Defendants - Appellees, and THE STATE OF MARYLAND; STATE OF MARYLAND ADMINISTRATIVE ELECTION BOARD; PARRIS N. GLENDENING, Office of Governor of Mar
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1874 JOHN B. KIMBLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS; ROBERT L. ERLICH, JR., Governor; R. KARL AUMANN, Secretary of State; JOHN WILLIS, Secretary of State; ADMINISTRATIVE STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS; NANCY KOPP, in her official capacity as Secretary of State, Defendants - Appellees, and THE STATE OF MARYLAND; STATE OF MARYLAND ADMINISTRATIVE ELECTION BOARD; PARRIS N. GLENDENING, Office of Governor of Maryland, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-02- 2984-8) Submitted: November 19, 2004 Decided: February 1, 2005 Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John B. Kimble, Appellant Pro Se. Kathryn Michele Rowe, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Annapolis, Maryland; Maureen Mullen Dove, Assistant Attorney General, Steven Marshall Sullivan, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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). - 2 - PER CURIAM: John B. Kimble appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss his civil complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. See Kimble v. Maryland, No. CA-02-2984-8 (D. Md. June 10, 2004). 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 - 3 -
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