Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Thomas Stack, Jr. v. Outstanding Marine, 13-2471 (2014)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 13-2471 Visitors: 42
Filed: Mar. 04, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2471 THOMAS FRANCIS STACK, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. OUTSTANDING MARINE; JAMES E. STACK; COLONEL GEORGE JOHNSON, MD/DNR; OFFICER R. KAUFMAN; OFFICER PHILLIPS; JOHN GRIFFIN, Maryland Department of Natural Resources; BRENDA DONALD, Maryland Human Resources Agency; SKIP BOLINGER; CARL SNOWDEN, Civil Rights Director; STEVEN P. LEMMEY; GIANT FOOD; RICHARD BAKER; TERRY KOKOLIS; JOHN E. GUNNING; EDWARD A. HOLDEN; Harbormaster
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2471 THOMAS FRANCIS STACK, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. OUTSTANDING MARINE; JAMES E. STACK; COLONEL GEORGE JOHNSON, MD/DNR; OFFICER R. KAUFMAN; OFFICER PHILLIPS; JOHN GRIFFIN, Maryland Department of Natural Resources; BRENDA DONALD, Maryland Human Resources Agency; SKIP BOLINGER; CARL SNOWDEN, Civil Rights Director; STEVEN P. LEMMEY; GIANT FOOD; RICHARD BAKER; TERRY KOKOLIS; JOHN E. GUNNING; EDWARD A. HOLDEN; Harbormaster J. P. WALTERS; BRUCE LALONDE, Director, Oasis Opportunity Center; OFFICER GARVEY; MARY STACK DIXON, Defendants – Appellees, and STATE OF MARYLAND; MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (Police), Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. (1:13-cv-01835-WMN) Submitted: February 27, 2014 Decided: March 4, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas Francis Stack, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Thomas Francis Stack, Jr., appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his civil complaints and denying reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Stack v. Outstanding Marine, No. 1:13- cv-01835-WMN (D. Md. Nov. 7, 2013). We deny Stack’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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 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