Filed: Aug. 14, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1032 GLORIA HILL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOYCE CREECH; WILDER RICHMAN CORPORATION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA- 95-1802-WMN) Submitted: July 30, 1996 Decided: August 14, 1996 Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gloria Hill, Appel
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1032 GLORIA HILL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOYCE CREECH; WILDER RICHMAN CORPORATION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA- 95-1802-WMN) Submitted: July 30, 1996 Decided: August 14, 1996 Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gloria Hill, Appell..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1032 GLORIA HILL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOYCE CREECH; WILDER RICHMAN CORPORATION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA- 95-1802-WMN) Submitted: July 30, 1996 Decided: August 14, 1996 Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gloria Hill, Appellant Pro Se. Minda Frahm Goldberg, WARTZMAN, OMANSKY, BILBAUM, SIMONS, STEINBERG, SACHS & SAGAL, Towson, Mary- land, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order granting summary judgment to Defendants in her civil action in which she asserts numerous claims concerning her apartment. 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. Hill v. Creech, No. CA-95-1802-WMN (D.Md. Dec. 26, 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. We deny Appellant's motion for production of documents. AFFIRMED 2