Filed: Apr. 20, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1004 EDWIN C. COLEMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CARRIE M. WARD, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:17-cv-01746-CCB) Submitted: April 17, 2018 Decided: April 20, 2018 Before WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edwin C. Coleman, Ap
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1004 EDWIN C. COLEMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CARRIE M. WARD, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:17-cv-01746-CCB) Submitted: April 17, 2018 Decided: April 20, 2018 Before WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edwin C. Coleman, App..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1004 EDWIN C. COLEMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CARRIE M. WARD, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:17-cv-01746-CCB) Submitted: April 17, 2018 Decided: April 20, 2018 Before WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edwin C. Coleman, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew Daniel Cohen, BWW LAW GROUP, LLC, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Edwin C. Coleman appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his civil complaint and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Coleman v. Ward, No. 1:17-cv-01746-CCB (D. Md., Oct. 31 & Dec. 5, 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
