Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Wilder v. Shalala, Sec, 97-1945 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-1945 Visitors: 32
Filed: Jan. 06, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1945 LAWRENCE VERLINE WILDER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DONNA E. SHALALA, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant - Appellee, No. 97-2256 LAWRENCE VERLINE WILDER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DONNA E. SHALALA, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA- 96-3472
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1945 LAWRENCE VERLINE WILDER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DONNA E. SHALALA, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant - Appellee, No. 97-2256 LAWRENCE VERLINE WILDER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DONNA E. SHALALA, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA- 96-3472-S) Submitted: December 18, 1997 Decided: January 6, 1998 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lawrence Verline Wilder, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). 2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's orders dismissing Appellant's complaint alleging employment discrimination claims and denying Appellant's motion to vacate the district court's order dismissing his complaint. Appellant also appeals the district court's order denying his motion for recusal and granting his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. We have reviewed the records and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Wilder v. Shalala, No. CA-96-3742-S (D. Md. July 14, 1997; July 28, 1997; July 30, 1997; Aug. 15, 1997). 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 deci- sional process. AFFIRMED 3
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