Filed: Apr. 30, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-2291 LAWRENCE VERLINE WILDER, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WARSHAW ONE LLC., INC; SANDRA DORSEY; BALTIMORE COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:06-cv-02504-CCB) Submitted: April 26, 2007 Decided: April 30, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpu
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-2291 LAWRENCE VERLINE WILDER, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WARSHAW ONE LLC., INC; SANDRA DORSEY; BALTIMORE COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:06-cv-02504-CCB) Submitted: April 26, 2007 Decided: April 30, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpub..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-2291 LAWRENCE VERLINE WILDER, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WARSHAW ONE LLC., INC; SANDRA DORSEY; BALTIMORE COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:06-cv-02504-CCB) Submitted: April 26, 2007 Decided: April 30, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lawrence Verline Wilder, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Lawrence Verline Wilder, Sr., appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Wilder v. Warshaw One LLC., Inc., No. 1:06-cv- 02504-CCB (D. Md. Nov. 30, 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 -
