Filed: Aug. 25, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1070 JOE D. CRAWFORD, M.D., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PETER J. MESSITTE, U. S. District Judge; UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, for the Southern District of Maryland, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-98-3309-AW) Submitted: August 19, 1999 Decided: August 25, 1999 Before WIDENER and KING, Circuit Judg
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1070 JOE D. CRAWFORD, M.D., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PETER J. MESSITTE, U. S. District Judge; UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, for the Southern District of Maryland, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-98-3309-AW) Submitted: August 19, 1999 Decided: August 25, 1999 Before WIDENER and KING, Circuit Judge..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1070 JOE D. CRAWFORD, M.D., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PETER J. MESSITTE, U. S. District Judge; UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, for the Southern District of Maryland, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-98-3309-AW) Submitted: August 19, 1999 Decided: August 25, 1999 Before WIDENER and KING, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joe D. Crawford, Appellant Pro Se. Allen F. Loucks, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Joe D. Crawford appeals the district court’s order denying his motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). 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 Crawford v. Messitte, No. CA-98-3309-AW (D. Md. Dec. 14, 1998). 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
