Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

McNamara v. Glendening, 96-6546 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6546 Visitors: 6
Filed: Oct. 10, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6546 GARY N. MCNAMARA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PARRIS N. GLENDENING, Governor, State of Maryland; NELSON SABATINI, Secretary, Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene; MARY K. NOREN, Superintendent, Eastern Shore Hos- pital Center; DAVID WILLIAMSON, M.D., Director of Forensic Psychiatry, Eastern Shore Hos- pital Center; KEVIN J. RICHARDS, PH.D., Staff Psychologist, Clifton T. Perkins Hospital Center; JOEL J. T
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6546 GARY N. MCNAMARA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PARRIS N. GLENDENING, Governor, State of Maryland; NELSON SABATINI, Secretary, Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene; MARY K. NOREN, Superintendent, Eastern Shore Hos- pital Center; DAVID WILLIAMSON, M.D., Director of Forensic Psychiatry, Eastern Shore Hos- pital Center; KEVIN J. RICHARDS, PH.D., Staff Psychologist, Clifton T. Perkins Hospital Center; JOEL J. TODD, State's Attorney for Worchester County; GARY MUMFORD, State's Attorney for Worchester County; ANITA EARP ROBINSON, Administrative Law Judge; RAUL LOPEZ, Psychiatrist, Eastern Shore Hospital Center, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-95- 2138-AMD) Submitted: October 3, 1996 Decided: October 10, 1996 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary N. McNamara, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Susan Renee Steinberg, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1994) complaint and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accord- ingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. McNamara v. Glendening, No. CA-95-2138-AMD (D. Md. Mar. 12 & 28, 1996). 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 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