Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Edmond Machie v. Nancy Demme, 13-2539 (2014)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 13-2539 Visitors: 34
Filed: Mar. 31, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2539 EDMOND K. MACHIE, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. NANCY DEMME, Commander; PAK, Officer; K. C. HAAK, Officer; MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND, Defendants – Appellees, and J. THOMAS MANGER, Chief, Montgomery County Police, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:09-cv-02196-AW) Submitted: March 27, 2014 Decided: March 31, 2014 B
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2539 EDMOND K. MACHIE, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. NANCY DEMME, Commander; PAK, Officer; K. C. HAAK, Officer; MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND, Defendants – Appellees, and J. THOMAS MANGER, Chief, Montgomery County Police, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:09-cv-02196-AW) Submitted: March 27, 2014 Decided: March 31, 2014 Before MOTZ, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edmond Machie, Appellant Pro Se. Edward Barry Lattner, COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Rockville, Maryland; Silvia Carolina Kinch, OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Edmond Machie appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his civil rights complaint in part, granting summary judgment in favor of some defendants, denying his motion to alter or amend the grant of summary judgment, and entering judgment in favor of the remaining defendant following a jury trial. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Machie’s informal brief does not fairly challenge the basis for the district court’s dispositions or the jury’s verdict, Machie has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We deny Machie’s motions for counsel and for a transcript at Government expense. 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 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