Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Robert Holley v. Curt Goldbrick Joseph Kleinota Robert Brown James Miller Robert Batzer William B., No. B-354, 89-7820 (1990)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 89-7820 Visitors: 17
Filed: Mar. 22, 1990
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 898 F.2d 145 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Robert HOLLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Curt GOLDBRICK; Joseph Kleinota; Robert Brown; James Miller; Robert Batzer; William B., No. B-354, Defendants-Appellees. No. 89-7820. United States Court of Appeals, F
More

898 F.2d 145
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Robert HOLLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Curt GOLDBRICK; Joseph Kleinota; Robert Brown; James
Miller; Robert Batzer; William B., No. B-354,
Defendants-Appellees.

No. 89-7820.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 29, 1989.
Decided: Feb. 26, 1990.
Rehearing and Rehearing In Banc Denied March 22, 1990.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Joseph C. Howard, District Judge. (C/A No. 89-341-JH)

Robert Holley, appellant pro se.

Robert Charles Verderaime, Verderaime and Dubois, Baltimore, Maryland, for appellees.

D.Md.

AFFIRMED.

Before DONALD RUSSELL and SPROUSE, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Robert Holley appeals from the district court's order denying relief under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Holley v. Goldbrick, C/A 89-341-JH (D.Md. August 25, 1989). 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.

2

AFFIRMED.

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