Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Wilder v. Glass Health Assn, 97-2211 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-2211 Visitors: 25
Filed: Jan. 07, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-2211 LAWRENCE VERLINE WILDER, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GLASS HEALTH ASSOCIATION; BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF MARYLAND, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA- 97-2103-S) Submitted: December 18, 1997 Decided: January 7, 1998 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublis
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-2211 LAWRENCE VERLINE WILDER, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GLASS HEALTH ASSOCIATION; BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF MARYLAND, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA- 97-2103-S) Submitted: December 18, 1997 Decided: January 7, 1998 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lawrence Verline Wilder, Appellant Pro Se. Michael E. Glass, Pikesville, Maryland; Philip Vito Tamburello, Owings Mills, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's orders granting summary judgment for the Appellees and denying his motion for reconsidera- tion of the grant of summary judgment to Appellee Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Maryland and motion to amend his complaint. 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. Glass Health Ass’n, No. CA-97-2103-S (D. Md. Aug. 19, 1997; Aug. 22, 1997; Aug. 27, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate- ly 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