Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

In Re: Litzenberg v., 97-2526 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-2526 Visitors: 24
Filed: Mar. 12, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-2526 In Re: DOROTHY P. LITZENBERG, Plaintiff - Appellant. No. 97-2692 DOROTHY P. LITZENBERG (Mrs.), Plaintiff - Appellant, and CECIL COUNTY LAND CORPORATION, Secretary/ Treasurer Dorothy Litzenberg, Plaintiff, versus JOHN H. LITZENBERG; CECIL FEDERAL BANK; CONESTOGA TITLE COMPANY, Office of Thrift Supervision, Defendants - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-2526 In Re: DOROTHY P. LITZENBERG, Plaintiff - Appellant. No. 97-2692 DOROTHY P. LITZENBERG (Mrs.), Plaintiff - Appellant, and CECIL COUNTY LAND CORPORATION, Secretary/ Treasurer Dorothy Litzenberg, Plaintiff, versus JOHN H. LITZENBERG; CECIL FEDERAL BANK; CONESTOGA TITLE COMPANY, Office of Thrift Supervision, Defendants - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (MISC-94-67, CA-97-3681-JFM) Submitted: February 12, 1998 Decided: March 12, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dorothy P. Litzenberg, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Appellant appeals the district court's orders denying several motions filed in regard to a previ- ously litigated civil action. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. In Re: Litzenberg, No. MISC-94-67; CA-97-3681-JFM (D. Md. Oct. 17 & Dec. 8, 1997). We also deny Appellant's motion to recuse the dis- trict court judge, her petition for immediate review. 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