Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

William Roberson v. State of Maryland J. Joseph Curran, Jr., 93-1965 (1993)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 93-1965 Visitors: 53
Filed: Oct. 15, 1993
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 8 F.3d 820 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. William ROBERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE OF MARYLAND; J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Defendants-Appellees. No. 93-1965. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted: September 27, 1993. Decided: October 15, 1993. Appeal
More

8 F.3d 820

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
William ROBERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
STATE OF MARYLAND; J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 93-1965.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: September 27, 1993.
Decided: October 15, 1993.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA-93-1917-JFM)

William Roberson, Appellant Pro Se.

D.Md.

AFFIRMED.

Before RUSSELL and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing Roberson's civil action seeking damages for economic hardship allegedly resulting from Maryland's compulsory automobile insurance laws. 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.* Roberson v. Maryland, No. CA-93-1917-JFM (D. Md. July 13, 1993). 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

*

We note that the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutional validity of compulsory automobile insurance laws. See Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535 (1971)

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