Filed: May 28, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6296 MICHAEL RICHARD D’ALESSANDRO, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND; SUZYK MALAGARY; JOHN DOE, Case Manager; GRANT CLARK, Property Manager, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:09-cv-00190-PJM) Submitted: May 20, 2010 Decided: May 28, 2010 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circui
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6296 MICHAEL RICHARD D’ALESSANDRO, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND; SUZYK MALAGARY; JOHN DOE, Case Manager; GRANT CLARK, Property Manager, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:09-cv-00190-PJM) Submitted: May 20, 2010 Decided: May 28, 2010 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6296
MICHAEL RICHARD D’ALESSANDRO,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND; SUZYK MALAGARY; JOHN DOE, Case
Manager; GRANT CLARK, Property Manager,
Defendants – Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
Judge. (8:09-cv-00190-PJM)
Submitted: May 20, 2010 Decided: May 28, 2010
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Richard D’Alessandro, Appellant Pro Se. Patricia
Lisehora Kane, COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Rockville, Maryland,
for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Richard D’Alessandro appeals the district
court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006)
complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. D’Alessandro v. Montgomery County, No. 8:09-cv-
00190-PJM (D. Md. filed Jan. 20, 2009; entered Jan. 21, 2010).
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