Filed: May 28, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6197 CALLIXTUS ONIGBO NWAEHIRI, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MARYLAND STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, District Judge. (1:09-cv-03358-BEL) Submitted: May 20, 2010 Decided: May 28, 2010 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Callixtus Onigbo Nwa
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6197 CALLIXTUS ONIGBO NWAEHIRI, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MARYLAND STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, District Judge. (1:09-cv-03358-BEL) Submitted: May 20, 2010 Decided: May 28, 2010 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Callixtus Onigbo Nwae..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6197 CALLIXTUS ONIGBO NWAEHIRI, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MARYLAND STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, District Judge. (1:09-cv-03358-BEL) Submitted: May 20, 2010 Decided: May 28, 2010 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Callixtus Onigbo Nwaehiri, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Callixtus Onigbo Nwaehiri seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for a preliminary injunction preventing the Maryland State Board of Pharmacy (“Board”) from revoking his pharmacy license following his criminal convictions. As the Board has since issued a final order revoking Nwaehiri’s license, however, we dismiss the appeal as moot. 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 in the decisional process. DISMISSED 2
