Filed: Mar. 16, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-2147 NAMISH PARIKH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HON. BRIAN FROSH, In his capacity as Attorney General of Maryland, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. George Jarrod Hazel, District Judge. (8:17-cv-00332-GJH) Submitted: February 28, 2018 Decided: March 16, 2018 Before TRAXLER, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-2147 NAMISH PARIKH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HON. BRIAN FROSH, In his capacity as Attorney General of Maryland, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. George Jarrod Hazel, District Judge. (8:17-cv-00332-GJH) Submitted: February 28, 2018 Decided: March 16, 2018 Before TRAXLER, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. N..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-2147 NAMISH PARIKH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HON. BRIAN FROSH, In his capacity as Attorney General of Maryland, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. George Jarrod Hazel, District Judge. (8:17-cv-00332-GJH) Submitted: February 28, 2018 Decided: March 16, 2018 Before TRAXLER, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Namish Parikh, Appellant Pro Se. Alexis Burrell Rohde, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Namish Parikh appeals the district court’s order dismissing this civil action challenging Maryland’s prejudgment attachment procedure under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Parikh v. Frosh, No. 8:17-cv-00332-GJH (D. Md. Sept. 15, 2017). 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
