Filed: May 17, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1907 JANET M. DEYERBERG, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BOB WOODWARD; TONY KORNHEISER; THE WASHINGTON POST COMPANY; CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS; VANITY FAIR MAGAZINE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-04-1118-AW) Submitted: March 30, 2005 Decided: May 17, 2005 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1907 JANET M. DEYERBERG, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BOB WOODWARD; TONY KORNHEISER; THE WASHINGTON POST COMPANY; CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS; VANITY FAIR MAGAZINE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-04-1118-AW) Submitted: March 30, 2005 Decided: May 17, 2005 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. A..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1907 JANET M. DEYERBERG, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BOB WOODWARD; TONY KORNHEISER; THE WASHINGTON POST COMPANY; CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS; VANITY FAIR MAGAZINE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-04-1118-AW) Submitted: March 30, 2005 Decided: May 17, 2005 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Janet M. Deyerberg, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Janet M. Deyerberg appeals the district court order dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action for failing to state a claim. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Deyerberg v. Woodward, No. CA-04-1118-AW (D. Md. June 17, 2004). We deny Deyerberg’s motion for depositions. 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 -
