Filed: Sep. 01, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1912 GLENN A. FROEMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE OF MARYLAND; PARRIS N. GLENDENING, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-98- 68-L) Submitted: August 13, 1998 Decided: September 1, 1998 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1912 GLENN A. FROEMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE OF MARYLAND; PARRIS N. GLENDENING, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-98- 68-L) Submitted: August 13, 1998 Decided: September 1, 1998 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. G..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1912 GLENN A. FROEMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE OF MARYLAND; PARRIS N. GLENDENING, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-98- 68-L) Submitted: August 13, 1998 Decided: September 1, 1998 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Glenn A. Froeman, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland; Sheila Edwards Lundy, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Glen Burnie, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 orders dismissing his civil action and denying his motion for a new trial. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Froeman v. Maryland, No. CA-98-68-L (D. Md. June 1 & 15, 1998). 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
