Filed: Sep. 30, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6703 WAYNE RESPER, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. DEREK A. BAER, Officer, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:13-cv-00024-PJM) Submitted: September 20, 2013 Decided: September 30, 2013 Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wayne Resper, Appellant Pro Se. Un
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6703 WAYNE RESPER, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. DEREK A. BAER, Officer, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:13-cv-00024-PJM) Submitted: September 20, 2013 Decided: September 30, 2013 Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wayne Resper, Appellant Pro Se. Unp..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6703
WAYNE RESPER,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
DEREK A. BAER, Officer,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
Judge. (8:13-cv-00024-PJM)
Submitted: September 20, 2013 Decided: September 30, 2013
Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Wayne Resper, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Wayne Resper appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) (2006) as barred by the statute of limitations.
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by
the district court. See Resper v. Baer, No. 8:13-cv-00024-PJM
(D. Md. Jan. 15 & Mar. 26, 2013). In addition, we note that “in
Maryland, following the voluntary dismissal of a civil action
without prejudice, a second complaint based upon the same facts
still must be filed within the applicable limitations period.”
Sheng Bi v. Gibson,
45 A.3d 305, 309 (Md. App. 2012). * We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
*
Federal courts must apply the forum state’s rules for
tolling the statute of limitations. Bd. of Regents v. Tomanio,
446 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1980).
2