Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

95-1677 (1995)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-1677 Visitors: 29
Filed: Aug. 15, 1995
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 64 F.3d 656 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. James K. CALCUTT; June B. Calcutt, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. STATE of Maryland; Stephen Cordi; Thomas Mace; Deborah Bacharach; Michael Schmith; Susan Demianchik; J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Maryland; Louis Goldste
More

64 F.3d 656

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
James K. CALCUTT; June B. Calcutt, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
STATE of Maryland; Stephen Cordi; Thomas Mace; Deborah
Bacharach; Michael Schmith; Susan Demianchik; J. Joseph
Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Maryland; Louis Goldstein,
Comptroller, Maryland, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 95-1677.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted July 27, 1995.
Decided Aug. 15, 1995.

James K. Calcutt, June B. Calcutt, Appellants Pro Se. Evelyn Omega Cannon, Assistant Attorney General, Kathleen Susan Hoke, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, MD, for Appellees.

D.Md.

AFFIRMED.

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, MOTZ, Circuit Judge, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellants appeal from the district court's order dismissing their action in which they claimed that the Defendants illegally assessed state retail sales taxes against them. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Calcutt v. Maryland No. CA-94-3408-H (D.Md. Feb. 21, 1995). 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