Filed: Feb. 06, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2682 BARBARA HOFFMANN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHAEL HOFFMANN; JOSEPH ROUSE; PAT BELL, States Attorney; STATE OF MARYLAND; JUDGE MANAK, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-96- 3031-AMD) Submitted: January 21, 1997 Decided: February 6, 1997 Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2682 BARBARA HOFFMANN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHAEL HOFFMANN; JOSEPH ROUSE; PAT BELL, States Attorney; STATE OF MARYLAND; JUDGE MANAK, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-96- 3031-AMD) Submitted: January 21, 1997 Decided: February 6, 1997 Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior C..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2682 BARBARA HOFFMANN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHAEL HOFFMANN; JOSEPH ROUSE; PAT BELL, States Attorney; STATE OF MARYLAND; JUDGE MANAK, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-96- 3031-AMD) Submitted: January 21, 1997 Decided: February 6, 1997 Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Barbara Hoffmann, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's orders dismissing pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 1915(d) (1994), as amended by Prison Liti- gation Reform Act of 1996, Pub. L.No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321, Appellant's personal injury claim and denying her motion for recon- sideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Hoffmann v. Hoff- mann, No. CA-96-3031-AMD (D. Md. Oct. 21 and Nov. 21, 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 2