Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

88-3608 (1989)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 88-3608 Visitors: 19
Filed: Apr. 25, 1989
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 872 F.2d 417 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Roger HOHL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joseph P. KINGETER, Support Officer of Baltimore County Support & Custody Division, Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Hermanus Herndon, or (Robert Johnson), Private Pro
More

872 F.2d 417
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Roger HOHL, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Joseph P. KINGETER, Support Officer of Baltimore County
Support & Custody Division, Circuit Court for Baltimore
County, Hermanus Herndon, or (Robert Johnson), Private
Process Server and Agent on behalf of Baltimore County
Support & Custody Division, Circuit Court for Baltimore
County, Master Eric Dinenna, on behalf of Baltimore County
Support & Custody Division, Circuit Court for Baltimore
County, Michael A. Kormuth, Director of Baltimore County
Support & Custody Division, Circuit Court for Baltimore
County, Darlene T. Hohl, (Vienna); Mark Urbanich, Support
Officer of Baltimore County Support & Custody Division,
Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 88-3608.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 31, 1989.
Decided March 28, 1989.
Rehearing Denied April 25, 1989.

Roger Hohl, appellant pro se.

Arnold Jablon, County Attorney's Office, for appellees.

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and PHILLIPS and CHAPMAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Roger Hohl appeals from the district court's order denying relief under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Hohl v. Kingeter, C/A No. 88-2094-S (D.Md. July 26, 1988). Hohl's motion for summary reversal is denied. We dispense with oral argument because the dispositive issues recently have been decided authoritatively.

2

AFFIRMED.

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