Filed: Jun. 25, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1373 JIMMY HALL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MARYLAND, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA- 01-2909-DKC) Submitted: June 19, 2003 Decided: June 25, 2003 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jimmy Hall, Appellant Pro Se. Sean D
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1373 JIMMY HALL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MARYLAND, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA- 01-2909-DKC) Submitted: June 19, 2003 Decided: June 25, 2003 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jimmy Hall, Appellant Pro Se. Sean Da..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1373 JIMMY HALL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MARYLAND, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA- 01-2909-DKC) Submitted: June 19, 2003 Decided: June 25, 2003 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jimmy Hall, Appellant Pro Se. Sean Daniel Wallace, Rhonda Lee Weaver, COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Upper Marlboro, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Jimmy Hall appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his housing discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Hall v. Prince George’s County, No. CA-01-2909-DKC (D. Md. Mar. 4, 2003). 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
