Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Wilder v. United States, 97-2651 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-2651 Visitors: 48
Filed: Feb. 03, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-2651 LAWRENCE VERLINE WILDER, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES FEDERAL PROTECTIVE SERVICE; MAYOR BALTIMORE CITY, MARYLAND; COMMISSIONER BALTIMORE POLICE DEPARTMENT, MARYLAND; COMMIS- SIONER HOWARD COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT, MARY- LAND; FIRE CHIEF HOWARD COUNTY FIRE DEPART- MENT, MARYLAND; DONNA E. SHALALA, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; PRESTIGE MOTORS, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND; COUNTY EXECUTIVE, HOWARD C
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-2651 LAWRENCE VERLINE WILDER, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES FEDERAL PROTECTIVE SERVICE; MAYOR BALTIMORE CITY, MARYLAND; COMMISSIONER BALTIMORE POLICE DEPARTMENT, MARYLAND; COMMIS- SIONER HOWARD COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT, MARY- LAND; FIRE CHIEF HOWARD COUNTY FIRE DEPART- MENT, MARYLAND; DONNA E. SHALALA, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; PRESTIGE MOTORS, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND; COUNTY EXECUTIVE, HOWARD COUNTY, MARYLAND, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA- 97-3747-S) Submitted: January 22, 1998 Decided: February 3, 1998 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lawrence Verline Wilder, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Wilder v. United States Federal Protective Serv., No. CA-97-3747-S (D. Md. Nov. 21, 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. DISMISSED 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