Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Cherie Phillips v. State of Maryland Department of Economic & Employment Development Board of Appeals, 93-2032 (1993)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 93-2032 Visitors: 34
Filed: Oct. 15, 1993
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 8 F.3d 819 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Cherie PHILLIPS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE OF MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC & EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT BOARD OF APPEALS, Defendant-Appellee. No. 93-2032. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted: September 27, 1
More

8 F.3d 819

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Cherie PHILLIPS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
STATE OF MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC & EMPLOYMENT
DEVELOPMENT BOARD OF APPEALS, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 93-2032.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-93-288-R)

Cherie Phillips, Appellant Pro Se.

Carolyn Annette Quattrocki, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

E.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

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

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief in this civil action alleging constitutional violations. 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. Phillips v. State of Maryland Dep't of Economic & Employment Dev. Bd. of Appeals, No. CA-93-288-R (E.D. Va. July 14, 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

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