Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Papesh v. Brookshire, 96-2396 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-2396 Visitors: 38
Filed: Feb. 25, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2396 RUDOLPH S. PAPESH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus R. REX BROOKSHIRE, II, Maryland Worker's Com- pensation Commission Director of Administra- tion; CHARLES J. KRYSIAK, Maryland Worker's Compensation Commission Chairman; STEPHEN ROSENBAUM, Maryland Worker's Compensation Commission Commissioner; MELVIN HIRSHMAN, Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland Bar Counsel; WILLIAM B. BOKEL, JR., Insurance Fraud Unit Corporal-MSP;
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2396 RUDOLPH S. PAPESH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus R. REX BROOKSHIRE, II, Maryland Worker's Com- pensation Commission Director of Administra- tion; CHARLES J. KRYSIAK, Maryland Worker's Compensation Commission Chairman; STEPHEN ROSENBAUM, Maryland Worker's Compensation Commission Commissioner; MELVIN HIRSHMAN, Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland Bar Counsel; WILLIAM B. BOKEL, JR., Insurance Fraud Unit Corporal-MSP; THOMAS V. MIKE MILLER, JR., President, Senate of Maryland; WILLIAM DONALD SCHAEFER, Past Governor; STATE OF MARYLAND, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-95-1984-WMN) Submitted: February 13, 1997 Decided: February 25, 1997 Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rudolph S. Papesh, Appellant Pro Se. Lucy Adams Cardwell, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order granting Defen- dants' motion to dismiss his civil action in which he sought damages for alleged constitutional violations in the course of workers' compensation proceedings. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accord- ingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Papesh v. Brookshire, No. CA-95-1984-WMN (D. Md. Sept. 3, 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
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