Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

McRae v. State of Maryland, 19-4182 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 19-4182
Filed: May 28, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-3122 MICHAEL MCRAE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE OF MARYLAND, Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA- 95-3388-S) Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: May 28, 1996 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Ju
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-3122 MICHAEL MCRAE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE OF MARYLAND, Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA- 95-3388-S) Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: May 28, 1996 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael McRae, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing his employment discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Ac- cordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. McRae v. Maryland, No. CA-95-3388-S (D. Md. Nov. 21, 1995). We note that to the extent Appellant sought reconsideration of the district court's dismissal of his prior action, rather than to file a new action, relief was properly denied. Appellant presented no infor- mation to support a finding that the district court abused its dis- cretion in determining that Appellant's first action was untimely. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten- tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
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