Filed: Feb. 02, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1984 BRIAN KEITH WAUGH, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. SOUTHEASTERN GUN COMPANY, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:11-cv-01741-AW) Submitted: January 31, 2012 Decided: February 2, 2012 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Brian Keith Waugh, Appellant P
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1984 BRIAN KEITH WAUGH, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. SOUTHEASTERN GUN COMPANY, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:11-cv-01741-AW) Submitted: January 31, 2012 Decided: February 2, 2012 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Brian Keith Waugh, Appellant Pr..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1984 BRIAN KEITH WAUGH, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. SOUTHEASTERN GUN COMPANY, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:11-cv-01741-AW) Submitted: January 31, 2012 Decided: February 2, 2012 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Brian Keith Waugh, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Brian Keith Waugh appeals the district court’s orders dismissing without prejudice his civil rights complaint against the Defendant, and denying his self-styled motions to alter judgment and to set aside order to dismiss without prejudice. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. Waugh v. Southeastern Gun Co., No. 8:11-cv-01741-AW (D. Md. July 15, 2011; Aug. 15, 2011; Sept. 8, 2011). 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 2
