Filed: Sep. 19, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6553 P. MARK SHAFER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ROBERT HARTMAN, Acting Supervisor C & O Canal NPS; LISA MENDELSON-IELMINI, Deputy Regional Director - NPS Capital Region; JOHN DOE, Acting Deputy Regional Director NPS; U.S. GOVERNMENT, Washington, DC, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (8:08- cv-00577-PJM) Submitted
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6553 P. MARK SHAFER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ROBERT HARTMAN, Acting Supervisor C & O Canal NPS; LISA MENDELSON-IELMINI, Deputy Regional Director - NPS Capital Region; JOHN DOE, Acting Deputy Regional Director NPS; U.S. GOVERNMENT, Washington, DC, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (8:08- cv-00577-PJM) Submitted:..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-6553
P. MARK SHAFER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ROBERT HARTMAN, Acting Supervisor C & O Canal NPS; LISA
MENDELSON-IELMINI, Deputy Regional Director - NPS Capital
Region; JOHN DOE, Acting Deputy Regional Director NPS; U.S.
GOVERNMENT, Washington, DC,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (8:08-
cv-00577-PJM)
Submitted: September 16, 2008 Decided: September 19, 2008
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
P. Mark Shafer, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
P. Mark Shafer appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985, 1986
(2000), and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of
Narcotics,
403 U.S. 388 (1971). We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons
stated by the district court. Shafer v. Hartman, No. 8:08-cv-
00577-PJM (D. Md. Mar. 31, 2008). 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