Filed: Jun. 24, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1582 In Re: DOROTHY P. LITZENBERG, Plaintiff - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (MISC-94-67) Submitted: June 5, 1998 Decided: June 24, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dorothy P. Litzenberg, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1582 In Re: DOROTHY P. LITZENBERG, Plaintiff - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (MISC-94-67) Submitted: June 5, 1998 Decided: June 24, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dorothy P. Litzenberg, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1582 In Re: DOROTHY P. LITZENBERG, Plaintiff - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (MISC-94-67) Submitted: June 5, 1998 Decided: June 24, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dorothy P. Litzenberg, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 order denying various motions in Appellant’s civil action. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. In Re: Litzenberg, No. MISC-94-67 (D. Md. Apr. 13, 1998). We deny Appellant’s Emergency Motion For ExParte [sic] Order to Compel Payment and her motion for recusal. 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
