Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Roger Banhi v. Papa John's USA, Inc., 14-1107 (2014)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 14-1107 Visitors: 25
Filed: Sep. 29, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1107 ROGER M. BANHI, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PAPA JOHN’S USA, INC.; VICTOR PAZ, in his official and individual capacity; ULISES VISCENCIO, in his official and individual capacity; COLONEL’S LIMITED, LLC, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge. (8:12-cv-00665-RWT) Submitted: September 25, 2014 Decided: September
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1107 ROGER M. BANHI, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PAPA JOHN’S USA, INC.; VICTOR PAZ, in his official and individual capacity; ULISES VISCENCIO, in his official and individual capacity; COLONEL’S LIMITED, LLC, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge. (8:12-cv-00665-RWT) Submitted: September 25, 2014 Decided: September 29, 2014 Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roger M. Banhi, Appellant Pro Se. Ariana Wright Arnold, Jennifer Lynn Curry, JACKSON LEWIS PC, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Roger M. Banhi appeals the district court’s orders granting summary judgment to the Defendants on his civil complaint and denying reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Banhi’s motion to appoint counsel and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Banhi v. Papa John’s USA, Inc., No. 8:12-cv-00665-RWT (D. Md. Jan. 6, 2014; July 18, 2013). We grant Banhi leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 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