Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Leonard Rollon Crawford-El v. Samuel M. Shapiro, Cassandra P. Hicks, Individually and as a Corporation, 90-7060 (1990)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 90-7060 Visitors: 63
Filed: Jul. 23, 1990
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 911 F.2d 721 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Leonard Rollon CRAWFORD-EL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Samuel M. SHAPIRO, Cassandra P. Hicks, Individually and as a Corporation, Defendants-Appellees. No. 90-7060. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circui
More

911 F.2d 721
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Leonard Rollon CRAWFORD-EL, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Samuel M. SHAPIRO, Cassandra P. Hicks, Individually and as a
Corporation, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 90-7060.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted July 9, 1990.
Decided July 23, 1990.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (C/A No. 89-2060-JFM)

Leonard Rollon Crawford-El, appellant pro se.

Joel Myron Savits, Jordan, Coyne, Savits & Lopata, Rockville, Md., for appellees.

D.Md.

AFFIRMED.

Before SPROUSE and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Leonard Rollon Crawford-El appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his legal malpractice action. 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. Crawford-El v. Shapiro, C/A No. 89-2060-JFM (D.Md. May 8, 1990). 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