Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Matthew Andrew Wilson v. Bishop L. Robinson, Office of the Secretary, Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, 92-6409 (1992)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 92-6409 Visitors: 18
Filed: Aug. 04, 1992
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 972 F.2d 345 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Matthew Andrew WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bishop L. ROBINSON, Office of the Secretary, Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, Defendant-Appellee. No. 92-6409. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Su
More

972 F.2d 345

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Matthew Andrew WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Bishop L. ROBINSON, Office of the Secretary, Department of
Public Safety and Correctional Services,
Defendant-Appellee.

No. 92-6409.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 20, 1992
Decided: August 4, 1992

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-92-358-WN)

Matthew Andrew Wilson, Appellant Pro Se.

Before MURNAGHAN, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

1

Matthew Andrew Wilson appeals from the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his civil rights complaint for failure to particularize the claims. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses no abuse of discretion and that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Wilson v. Robinson, No. CA-92-358-WN (D. Md. Mar. 10, 1992). 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