Filed: Nov. 20, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1976 THOMAS OLIVA; LOUIS J. DE MAIO, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus STATE OF MARYLAND, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA- 03-1936-JFM) Submitted: November 6, 2003 Decided: November 20, 2003 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas Oliva, Louis J.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1976 THOMAS OLIVA; LOUIS J. DE MAIO, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus STATE OF MARYLAND, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA- 03-1936-JFM) Submitted: November 6, 2003 Decided: November 20, 2003 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas Oliva, Louis J. ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1976 THOMAS OLIVA; LOUIS J. DE MAIO, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus STATE OF MARYLAND, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA- 03-1936-JFM) Submitted: November 6, 2003 Decided: November 20, 2003 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas Oliva, Louis J. De Maio, Appellants Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Thomas Oliva and Louis J. De Maio appeal the district court’s order dismissing their complaint alleging civil violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act under 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (2000), et seq. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Oliva v. Maryland, No. CA-03-1936-JFM (D. Md. July 10, 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
