Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Wardrick v. Love, 07-7282 (2007)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 07-7282 Visitors: 30
Filed: Nov. 27, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7282 ROBERT JUNIOR WARDRICK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THOMAS LOVE, Special Agent, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms; SHAUN GARRITY, Officer, Tactical Unit of Baltimore City Police Department; JOHN KELLEY, Officer, Tactical Unit of the Baltimore City Police Department; ROBERT OVERFIELD, Detective, Baltimore County Investigative Division of Baltimore County Police Department, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7282 ROBERT JUNIOR WARDRICK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THOMAS LOVE, Special Agent, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms; SHAUN GARRITY, Officer, Tactical Unit of Baltimore City Police Department; JOHN KELLEY, Officer, Tactical Unit of the Baltimore City Police Department; ROBERT OVERFIELD, Detective, Baltimore County Investigative Division of Baltimore County Police Department, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (1:07-cv- 01372-AMD) Submitted: November 15, 2007 Decided: November 27, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Junior Wardrick, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Robert Junior Wardrick appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Wardrick v. Love, No. 1:07-ct-01372-AMD (D. Md. June 7, 2007). 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