Filed: Mar. 23, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-2774 LEWIS O. SAUNDERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RICHARD LOTT, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-97-1516-WMN) Submitted: March 12, 1998 Decided: March 23, 1998 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lewis O. Saunders, Appellant Pro Se. Andre Mi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-2774 LEWIS O. SAUNDERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RICHARD LOTT, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-97-1516-WMN) Submitted: March 12, 1998 Decided: March 23, 1998 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lewis O. Saunders, Appellant Pro Se. Andre Mic..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-2774 LEWIS O. SAUNDERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RICHARD LOTT, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-97-1516-WMN) Submitted: March 12, 1998 Decided: March 23, 1998 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lewis O. Saunders, Appellant Pro Se. Andre Michael Forte, MCCARTHY, WILSON & ETHRIDGE, Rockville, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 his diversity action as barred by res judicata. 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. See Saunders v. Lott, No. CA-97-1516-WMN (D. Md. Nov. 24, 1997). We deny Appellee's motion for sanctions. 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
