Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

89-3375 (1990)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 89-3375 Visitors: 69
Filed: Jul. 13, 1990
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 908 F.2d 967 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Kondian R. RAJARAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION; Baltimore Typographical Union No. 12; Jack Poist; Gary Kidwell, Defendants-Appellees, and Sunpapers Chapel of Baltimore Typogra
More

908 F.2d 967
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Kondian R. RAJARAM, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION; Baltimore Typographical
Union No. 12; Jack Poist; Gary Kidwell,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
Sunpapers Chapel of Baltimore Typographical Union No. 12;
A.S. Abell Publishing Company, Defendants.

No. 89-3375.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 12, 1990.

Decided: June 20, 1990.
Rehearing Denied July 13, 1990.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Walter E. Black, Jr., District Judge. (C/A No. 80-12-B).

Kondian R. Rajaram, appellant pro se.

Brian A. Powers, O'Donoghue & O'Donoghue, Washington, D.C.; Bernard Wolf Rubenstein, Abato, Rubenstein & Abato, P.A., Lutherville, Md., for appellees.

D.Md.

AFFIRMED.

Before PHILLIPS and SPROUSE, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Kondian R. Rajaram appeals from the district court's order denying Rajaram's Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that the district court did not abuse its discretion and this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Rajaram v. International Typographical Union, C/A No. 80-12-B (D.Md. April 15, 1987). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

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