Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

De Santanna v. O'Malley, 10-1621 (2010)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 10-1621 Visitors: 13
Filed: Oct. 20, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1621 RODRIGUEZ SAMUEL DA MATHA DE SANTANNA, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. MARTIN O’MALLEY, Governor (first Representative of Maryland); GLENN IVEY, State’s Attorney (first Public Prosecutor of PG County); BRIAN LOFTON, Commissioner (ID#5138), Defendants – Appellees, and STATE OF MARYLAND, In care of Governor O’Malley, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander W
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1621 RODRIGUEZ SAMUEL DA MATHA DE SANTANNA, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. MARTIN O’MALLEY, Governor (first Representative of Maryland); GLENN IVEY, State’s Attorney (first Public Prosecutor of PG County); BRIAN LOFTON, Commissioner (ID#5138), Defendants – Appellees, and STATE OF MARYLAND, In care of Governor O’Malley, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:09-cv—01927-AW) Submitted: October 14, 2010 Decided: October 20, 2010 Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rodriguez Samuel Da Matha De Santana, Appellant Pro Se. Glenn William Bell, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Rodriguez Samuel Da Matha De Santana appeals the district court’s order granting the Defendants’ motions to dismiss in this civil rights action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. De Matha De Santana v. O’Malley, No. 8:09-cv-01927-AW (D. Md. filed May 21, 2010 & entered May 24, 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 3
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