Filed: Jun. 02, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1099 RONALD LUBER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, MARYLAND; LAURA A. NEWMAN, County Executive, In Her Official Capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. Bredar, District Judge. (1:14-cv-00001-JKB) Submitted: May 29, 2014 Decided: June 2, 2014 Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per c
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1099 RONALD LUBER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, MARYLAND; LAURA A. NEWMAN, County Executive, In Her Official Capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. Bredar, District Judge. (1:14-cv-00001-JKB) Submitted: May 29, 2014 Decided: June 2, 2014 Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per cu..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1099
RONALD LUBER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, MARYLAND; LAURA A. NEWMAN, County
Executive, In Her Official Capacity,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. Bredar, District Judge.
(1:14-cv-00001-JKB)
Submitted: May 29, 2014 Decided: June 2, 2014
Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald Luber, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ronald Luber appeals a district court order dismissing
his civil rights complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (2012)
for failing to state a claim. We have reviewed the court’s
memorandum and the record and affirm for the reasons stated by
the court. See Luber v. Anne Arundel Cnty., Md., No. 1:14-cv-
00001-JKB (D. Md. entered Jan. 13, 2014, filed Jan. 14, 2014).
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