Filed: Dec. 09, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-2237 LAWRENCE VERLINE WILDER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KENNETH S. APFEL, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA- 97-1809-S) Submitted: November 20, 1997 Decided: December 9, 1997 Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam op
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-2237 LAWRENCE VERLINE WILDER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KENNETH S. APFEL, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA- 97-1809-S) Submitted: November 20, 1997 Decided: December 9, 1997 Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opi..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-2237 LAWRENCE VERLINE WILDER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KENNETH S. APFEL, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA- 97-1809-S) Submitted: November 20, 1997 Decided: December 9, 1997 Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lawrence Verline Wilder, Appellant Pro Se. Lynne Ann Battaglia, United States Attorney, Tamera Lynn Fine, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing this action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. 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. Wilder v. Shalala, No. CA-97-1809-S (D. Md. Aug. 25, 1997). 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
