Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

96-6546 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6546 Visitors: 8
Filed: Oct. 10, 1996
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 99 F.3d 1130 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Gary N. McNAMARA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Parris N. GLENDENING, Governor, State of Maryland; Nelson Sabatini, Secretary, Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene; Mary K. Noren, Superintendent, Eastern Shore Hos pital
More

99 F.3d 1130

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Gary N. McNAMARA, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Parris N. GLENDENING, Governor, State of Maryland; Nelson
Sabatini, Secretary, Maryland Department of Health and
Mental Hygiene; Mary K. Noren, Superintendent, Eastern
Shore Hos pital Center; David Williamson, M.D., Director of
Forensic Psychiatry, Eastern Shore Hos pital Center; Kevin
J. Richards, PH.D., Staff Psychologist, Clifton T. Perkins
Hospital Center; Joel J. Todd, State's Attorney for
Worchester County; Gary Mumford, State's Attorney for
Worchester County; Anita Earp Robinson, Administrative Law
Judge; Raul Lopez, Psychiatrist, Eastern Shore Hospital
Center, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 96-6546.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 3, 1996.
Decided Oct. 10, 1996.

Gary N. McNamara, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Susan Renee Steinberg, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

D.Md.

AFFIRMED.

Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals from the district court's orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. McNamara v. Glendening, No. CA-95-2138-AMD (D. Md. Mar. 12 & 28, 1996). 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