Filed: Jul. 24, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1578 MICHAEL J. SINDRAM, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TAMARA SAUNDERS; JOHN ZACKER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (8:06- cv-00578-PJM) Submitted: July 20, 2006 Decided: July 24, 2006 Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1578 MICHAEL J. SINDRAM, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TAMARA SAUNDERS; JOHN ZACKER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (8:06- cv-00578-PJM) Submitted: July 20, 2006 Decided: July 24, 2006 Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1578 MICHAEL J. SINDRAM, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TAMARA SAUNDERS; JOHN ZACKER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (8:06- cv-00578-PJM) Submitted: July 20, 2006 Decided: July 24, 2006 Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael J. Sindram, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Michael Sindram appeals a district court judgment summarily dismissing his complaint for having failed to state a claim and for having failed to comply with the requirements of a pre-filing injunction. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and affirm for the reasons of the district court. See Sindram v. Saunders, No. 8:06-cv-00578-PJM (D. Md. Mar. 6, 2006). 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 -
