Filed: May 04, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1206 GEZA ISTVAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus J. FREDERICK MOTZ, The Honorable Judge of the Federal District Court, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-99- 61-AMD) Submitted: April 29, 1999 Decided: May 4, 1999 Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Geza Is
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1206 GEZA ISTVAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus J. FREDERICK MOTZ, The Honorable Judge of the Federal District Court, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-99- 61-AMD) Submitted: April 29, 1999 Decided: May 4, 1999 Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Geza Ist..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1206 GEZA ISTVAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus J. FREDERICK MOTZ, The Honorable Judge of the Federal District Court, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-99- 61-AMD) Submitted: April 29, 1999 Decided: May 4, 1999 Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Geza Istvan, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Geza Istvan appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his “Complaint for Declaratory Judgment.” Our review of the record and the district court’s opinion discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Istvan v. Motz, No. CA-99-61-AMD (D. Md. Jan. 15, 1999). We dis- pense 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
