Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Ricks v. Thomas, 97-6694 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-6694 Visitors: 17
Filed: Sep. 23, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6694 DARRELL L. RICKS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus F. THOMAS, Clerk, Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Defendant - Appellee. No. 97-6848 DARRELL L. RICKS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus M. SANSOR, Clerk, Court of Special Appeals, Defendant - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA- 97-228-DKC, CA-97-335-DKC) Submitted: Sep
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6694 DARRELL L. RICKS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus F. THOMAS, Clerk, Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Defendant - Appellee. No. 97-6848 DARRELL L. RICKS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus M. SANSOR, Clerk, Court of Special Appeals, Defendant - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA- 97-228-DKC, CA-97-335-DKC) Submitted: September 11, 1997 Decided: September 23, 1997 Before RUSSELL, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Darrell L. Ricks, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Julia Melville Freit, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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). 2 PER CURIAM: In appeal No. 97-6694, Appellant, a Maryland inmate, appeals the district court's order denying relief on his motion for recon- sideration of the court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. In appeal No. 97-6848, Appellant appeals the district court's orders denying relief on his § 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp. 1997), and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the records and the district court's opinions and find that the appeals are frivolous. Accord- ingly, we dismiss the appeals on the reasoning of the district court. Ricks v. Thomas, No. CA-97-228-DKC (D. Md. Apr. 17, 1997); Ricks v. Sansor, No. CA-97-335-DKC (D. Md. Apr. 30, 1997). We dis- pense 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. DISMISSED 3
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