Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Jones v. Calvert Hall Limited Partnership, 08-1492 (2009)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 08-1492 Visitors: 3
Filed: Mar. 23, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1492 ELAINE JONES, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. CALVERT HALL LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; MORT YADIN, Defendants - Appellees, and LARENCE RICKY GODFREY, JR.; JOHN DOE, Individual or Business Entity; RICHARD ROE, a purveyor or seller of the weapon in question that was used by defendant Godfrey in the shooting in question, Defendants, v. MICHAEL A. JACKSON, Sheriff, Movant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District o
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1492 ELAINE JONES, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. CALVERT HALL LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; MORT YADIN, Defendants - Appellees, and LARENCE RICKY GODFREY, JR.; JOHN DOE, Individual or Business Entity; RICHARD ROE, a purveyor or seller of the weapon in question that was used by defendant Godfrey in the shooting in question, Defendants, v. MICHAEL A. JACKSON, Sheriff, Movant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:04-cv-03379-RWT) Submitted: February 20, 2009 Decided: March 23, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Elaine Jones, Appellant Pro Se. William Leonard Mitchell, II, Matthew Allan Ranck, ECCLESTON & WOLF, PC, Hanover, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Elaine Jones appeals the district court’s order upholding the magistrate judge’s procedural rulings and granting summary judgment in favor of Calvert Hall Limited Partnership and Mort Yadin. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Jones v. Calvert Hall Ltd. P’ship, No. 8:04-cv-03379-RWT (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 3
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