Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Samuel Olekanma v. Washington Adventist, 12-1178 (2012)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 12-1178 Visitors: 7
Filed: Jun. 05, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1178 SAMUEL I. OLEKANMA, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. WASHINGTON ADVENTIST UNIVERSITY; LAENA CHOUDHARY, and/or her successor, individually, and in her official capacity as Professor of Nursing 332 Pharmacology, Washington Adventist University an ens legis being used to conceal fraud; VALERIE J. SWAN, and/or her successor, individually, and in her official capacity as Professor of Nursing 350 Concepts of Maximum Health, Washing
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1178 SAMUEL I. OLEKANMA, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. WASHINGTON ADVENTIST UNIVERSITY; LAENA CHOUDHARY, and/or her successor, individually, and in her official capacity as Professor of Nursing 332 Pharmacology, Washington Adventist University an ens legis being used to conceal fraud; VALERIE J. SWAN, and/or her successor, individually, and in her official capacity as Professor of Nursing 350 Concepts of Maximum Health, Washington Adventist University an ens legis being used to conceal fraud, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:11-cv-01713-RWT) Submitted: May 31, 2012 Decided: June 5, 2012 Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Samuel I. Olekanma, Appellant Pro Se. H. Dean Bouland, Jr., Carrie McMahon Freeman, BOULAND & BRUSH, LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Samuel I. Olekanma appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint filed under various civil and criminal federal statutes. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Olekanma v. Washington Adventist Univ., No. 8:11-cv-01713-RWT (D. Md. Feb. 6, 2012). 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