Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

91-2378 (1992)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 91-2378 Visitors: 4
Filed: Apr. 16, 1992
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 960 F.2d 146 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Darlene SCHMIDT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE of Utah, Anyone who is authorized to act on behalf of the State, including power given to cities and towns to their agents; Boy Scouts of America, Ben Love and Bullock and Staff; Unit
More

960 F.2d 146

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Darlene SCHMIDT, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
STATE of Utah, Anyone who is authorized to act on behalf of
the State, including power given to cities and towns to
their agents; Boy Scouts of America, Ben Love and Bullock
and Staff; United States Government, As identified in
complaint; Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints,
Ezra Taft Benson, Boyd K. Packer, James E. Faust, Gordon
Hinckley and Does one to six million followers, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 91-2378.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 6, 1992
Decided: April 16, 1992

Darlene Schmidt, Appellant Pro Se.

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

OPINION

1

Darlene Schmidt appeals from the district court's order denying her motion to amend her complaint in her civil action, which sought damages and the cessation of allegedly unconstitutional infiltration of Utah state government by the Mormon church. 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. Schmidt v. State of Utah, No. CA-91-2802-3-17 (D.S.C. Dec. 10, 1991). 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

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