Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Phillip Mizrach v. United States, 12-2090 (2013)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 12-2090 Visitors: 38
Filed: Sep. 26, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-2090 PHILLIP MIZRACH, as Successor Personal Representative of the Estate of Abraham I. Kurland, Deceased, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:11-cv-01153-WDQ) Submitted: September 24, 2013 Decided: September 26, 2013 Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Ju
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-2090 PHILLIP MIZRACH, as Successor Personal Representative of the Estate of Abraham I. Kurland, Deceased, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:11-cv-01153-WDQ) Submitted: September 24, 2013 Decided: September 26, 2013 Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Phillip Mizrach, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Thomas H. Barnard, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Phillip Mizrach appeals the district court’s orders denying relief in his Federal Tort Claims Act action and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Mizrach v. United States, No. 1:11-cv-01153-WDQ (D. Md. Feb. 7, 2012; July 10, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 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