Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Lee v. MD Dept Pub Safety, 01-2375 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-2375 Visitors: 16
Filed: Feb. 21, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-2375 STACY ELIZABETH LEE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, Defendant - Appellee, and WILLIAM SMITH; QUINNIE MATTHEWS; SOLOMON HEJERIKA; ANTHONY OSANDU; SERGEANT KEENAN, Patuxent Institution; STUART O. SIMS, Secre- tary, Division of Corrections, Department of Public Safety and Transportation, State of Maryland, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Cou
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-2375 STACY ELIZABETH LEE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, Defendant - Appellee, and WILLIAM SMITH; QUINNIE MATTHEWS; SOLOMON HEJERIKA; ANTHONY OSANDU; SERGEANT KEENAN, Patuxent Institution; STUART O. SIMS, Secre- tary, Division of Corrections, Department of Public Safety and Transportation, State of Maryland, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-98- 2825-MJG) Submitted: February 14, 2002 Decided: February 21, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stacy Elizabeth Lee, Appellant Pro Se. Scott Sheldon Oakley, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Stacy Elizabeth Lee appeals from the district court’s order denying her motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of her action for failure to comply with Md. Local R. 106. We have re- viewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Lee v. Maryland Dep’t of Public Safety & Corr. Servs., No. CA-98-2825-MJG (D. Md. Oct. 19, 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
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