Filed: Dec. 20, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-2156 DAVID MYERS, M.D.; EKATERINA MYERS, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, MARYLAND, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. (1:18-cv-00075-JKB) Submitted: December 18, 2018 Decided: December 20, 2018 Before AGEE, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David M
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-2156 DAVID MYERS, M.D.; EKATERINA MYERS, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, MARYLAND, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. (1:18-cv-00075-JKB) Submitted: December 18, 2018 Decided: December 20, 2018 Before AGEE, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David My..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-2156
DAVID MYERS, M.D.; EKATERINA MYERS,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, MARYLAND,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. (1:18-cv-00075-JKB)
Submitted: December 18, 2018 Decided: December 20, 2018
Before AGEE, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Myers, M.D., Ekaterina Myers, Appellants Pro Se. Thomas John Mitchell, ANNE
ARUNDEL COUNTY OFFICE OF LAW, Annapolis, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
David Myers, M.D., and Ekaterina Myers appeal the district court’s order denying
reconsideration of the court’s order denying relief on their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012)
complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
affirm the district court’s order. 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