Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Hesman Tall v. The Partnership Development, 16-1532 (2016)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 16-1532 Visitors: 19
Filed: Oct. 20, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1532 HESMAN TALL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. THE PARTNERSHIP DEVELOPMENT GROUP INC., (PDG); PDG REHABILITATIVE SERVICES; RISE PROGRAM; MARYLAND STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; MARYLAND DIVISION OF REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:15-cv-03352-RDB) Submitted: October 18, 2016 Decided: O
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1532 HESMAN TALL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. THE PARTNERSHIP DEVELOPMENT GROUP INC., (PDG); PDG REHABILITATIVE SERVICES; RISE PROGRAM; MARYLAND STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; MARYLAND DIVISION OF REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:15-cv-03352-RDB) Submitted: October 18, 2016 Decided: October 20, 2016 Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Hesman Tall, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew David Gimovsky, WALKER, MURPHY & NELSON, LLP, Rockville, Maryland; Elliott L. Schoen, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Hesman Tall appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action alleging claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Maryland law. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Tall v. The P’ship Dev. Grp. Inc., No. 1:15-cv-03352-RDB (D. Md. Apr. 28, 2016). 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