Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Mark Panowicz v. Sharon Hancock, 15-2376 (2016)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 15-2376 Visitors: 36
Filed: Oct. 24, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-2376 MARK A. PANOWICZ, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. SHARON L. HANCOCK, in individual capacity; SHARON L. HANCOCK, Clerk of the Circuit Court for Charles County (in official capacity), Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (8:11-cv-02417-DKC) Submitted: October 7, 2016 Decided: October 24, 2016 Before WILKINSON
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-2376 MARK A. PANOWICZ, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. SHARON L. HANCOCK, in individual capacity; SHARON L. HANCOCK, Clerk of the Circuit Court for Charles County (in official capacity), Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (8:11-cv-02417-DKC) Submitted: October 7, 2016 Decided: October 24, 2016 Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark A. Panowicz, Appellant Pro Se. Michele J. McDonald, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Mark A. Panowicz seeks to appeal the district court’s orders granting summary judgment for the defendant Sharon L. Hancock, denying leave to amend, and denying his motions for reconsideration and to reopen sovereign immunity issues. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Panowicz v. Hancock, No. 8:11-cv-02417-DKC (D. Md. July 9, 2015; Oct. 5, 2015). 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