Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

94-2603 (1995)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Number: 94-2603 Visitors: 6
Filed: Jun. 30, 1995
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 60 F.3d 821 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Christopher L. CARR, Sr., Individually and as next friend and natural father of Jason M. Carr, minor; Jason M. Carr, a minor, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Jean MILLER; Charles Miller; Edward Rollins, III; Donaldson C. Cole, Jr.;
More

60 F.3d 821
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Christopher L. CARR, Sr., Individually and as next friend
and natural father of Jason M. Carr, minor; Jason
M. Carr, a minor, Plaintiffs--Appellants,
v.
Jean MILLER; Charles Miller; Edward Rollins, III;
Donaldson C. Cole, Jr.; State of Maryland, Second Judicial
Circuit Court for Cecil County; Other, as yet unidentified
Attorneys and/or PERSONS, and, all of them individually and
jointly with one another and in their individual and
official and administrative capacities, separate and
distinct, Defendants--Appellees.

No. 94-2603.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 28, 1995.
Decided June 30, 1995.

Christopher L. Carr, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.

PER CURIAM:

1

Before WILKINSON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

2

Appellant appeals from the district court's orders dismissing his civil action and denying reconsideration. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Carr v. Miller, No. CA-94-2987-S (D. Md. Nov. 7, 1994; Nov. 17, 1994).* 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

*

The Appellant's motion for extraordinary relief pending appeal and pendente lite is denied

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