Filed: May 25, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1422 T. JAMES ANDERSON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION; UNINSURED EMPLOYERS’ FUND; SUBSEQUENT INJURY FUND; CAMPEN & WALSWORTH, PLLC; UNION BAPTIST CHURCH, INCORPORATED, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-00- 3251-AMD) Submitted: May 17, 2001 Decided: May 25, 2001 Before WIDEN
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1422 T. JAMES ANDERSON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION; UNINSURED EMPLOYERS’ FUND; SUBSEQUENT INJURY FUND; CAMPEN & WALSWORTH, PLLC; UNION BAPTIST CHURCH, INCORPORATED, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-00- 3251-AMD) Submitted: May 17, 2001 Decided: May 25, 2001 Before WIDENE..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1422 T. JAMES ANDERSON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION; UNINSURED EMPLOYERS’ FUND; SUBSEQUENT INJURY FUND; CAMPEN & WALSWORTH, PLLC; UNION BAPTIST CHURCH, INCORPORATED, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-00- 3251-AMD) Submitted: May 17, 2001 Decided: May 25, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. T. James Anderson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: T. James Anderson, Jr. appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his civil action and abstaining from deciding claims pending in Maryland state courts. 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 Anderson v. Workers’ Compensation Commission, No. CA- 00-3251-AMD (D. Md. March 1, 2001). 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