Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Owens v. Caskey, 98-6592 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-6592 Visitors: 35
Filed: Oct. 20, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6592 JAMES JOSEPH OWENS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GERALD CASKEY, Deputy Clerk, Circuit Court, Baltimore City; RAY WALLACE, Office of the Clerk, Circuit Court, Baltimore City; PATRICIA M. BERTIORELLI, Clerk of the Circuit Court, Baltimore City; ROBERT C. FRANKE, Clerk, Court of Appeals of Maryland, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederi
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6592 JAMES JOSEPH OWENS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GERALD CASKEY, Deputy Clerk, Circuit Court, Baltimore City; RAY WALLACE, Office of the Clerk, Circuit Court, Baltimore City; PATRICIA M. BERTIORELLI, Clerk of the Circuit Court, Baltimore City; ROBERT C. FRANKE, Clerk, Court of Appeals of Maryland, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-4286-JFM) Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 20, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Joseph Owens, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Julia Melville Freit, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: James Joseph Owens appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. ยง 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint. 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. Owens v. Caskey, No. CA-97-4286-JFM (D. Md. Apr. 10, 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. The motion for appointment of counsel is denied. 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