Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Michael Osei v. University of MD Univ. College, 16-2074 (2018)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 16-2074 Visitors: 16
Filed: Feb. 06, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-2074 MICHAEL OSEI, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND UNIVERSITY COLLEGE (“UMUC”); THE OFFICE OF FINANCIAL AID, UMUC; JAVIER MIYARES; JULIE LINDENMEIER; CLAIRBOURNE W. PATTY; TERRENCE COOPER; LYNETTE O’LEARY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (8:15-cv-02502-DKC) Submitted: August 15, 2017
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-2074 MICHAEL OSEI, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND UNIVERSITY COLLEGE (“UMUC”); THE OFFICE OF FINANCIAL AID, UMUC; JAVIER MIYARES; JULIE LINDENMEIER; CLAIRBOURNE W. PATTY; TERRENCE COOPER; LYNETTE O’LEARY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (8:15-cv-02502-DKC) Submitted: August 15, 2017 Decided: February 6, 2018 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DUNCAN, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Osei, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Bowie Lord, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Michael Osei appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil complaint against the University of Maryland University College and certain employees of the university. Osei requested leave to amend his complaint in his opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss, but the court did not consider that request in its order dismissing the complaint. Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s judgment and remand to allow the court to decide whether leave to amend should be granted. We deny Osei’s motions for assignment of counsel and for default judgment. 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. VACATED AND REMANDED 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