Filed: Feb. 25, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2245 MELDON S. HOLLIS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ROBERT GORDON; TYDINGS & ROSENBERG, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-96-2474-WMN) Submitted: February 13, 1997 Decided: February 25, 1997 Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per c
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2245 MELDON S. HOLLIS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ROBERT GORDON; TYDINGS & ROSENBERG, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-96-2474-WMN) Submitted: February 13, 1997 Decided: February 25, 1997 Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per cu..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2245 MELDON S. HOLLIS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ROBERT GORDON; TYDINGS & ROSENBERG, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-96-2474-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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Meldon Stonewall Hollis, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Frederick Charles Leiner, TYDINGS & ROSENBERG, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 dismissing his civil suit to enjoin the enforcement of a state court judgment and denying his motion for a temporary restraining order. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court. Hollis v. Gordon, No. CA-96-2474-WMN (D. Md. Aug. 20, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
