Filed: Jul. 26, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1298 In re: STARSHA M. SEWELL, Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. (1:18-mc-00114) Submitted: June 12, 2018 Decided: July 26, 2018 Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Starsha M. Sewell, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1298 In re: STARSHA M. SEWELL, Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. (1:18-mc-00114) Submitted: June 12, 2018 Decided: July 26, 2018 Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Starsha M. Sewell, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit...
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1298 In re: STARSHA M. SEWELL, Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. (1:18-mc-00114) Submitted: June 12, 2018 Decided: July 26, 2018 Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Starsha M. Sewell, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Starsha M. Sewell appeals the district court’s order imposing a prefiling injunction after considering Sewell’s response to a show cause order. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. In re Sewell, No. 1:18-mc-00114 (D. Md. Mar. 6, 2018). 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
