Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Christopher Gibbs, Jr. v. State Commissioner, 13-7947 (2014)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 13-7947 Visitors: 10
Filed: Mar. 05, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7947 CHRISTOPHER GIBBS, JR., Plaintiff – Appellant, v. STATE COMMISSIONER # 2124, c/o Wicomico County Detention Center Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Paul W. Grimm, District Judge. (8:13- cv-03108-PWG) Submitted: February 27, 2014 Decided: March 5, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
More
                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 13-7947


CHRISTOPHER GIBBS, JR.,

                       Plaintiff – Appellant,

          v.

STATE COMMISSIONER # 2124, c/o Wicomico County Detention
Center

                       Defendant - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Paul W. Grimm, District Judge. (8:13-
cv-03108-PWG)


Submitted:   February 27, 2014              Decided:   March 5, 2014


Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Christopher Gibbs, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

           Christopher Gibbs, Jr., appeals the district court’s

order dismissing his civil action without prejudice pursuant to

Younger v. Harris, 
401 U.S. 37
(1977).         We have reviewed the

record and find no reversible error.       Accordingly, we affirm for

the reasons stated by the district court.          Gibbs v. State Comm’r

# 2124, No. 8:13-cv-03108-PWG (D. Md. Nov. 15, 2013).             We deny

Gibbs’   motion   for   counsel.   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




                                   2

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