Filed: Jun. 25, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1334 JAMES JOSEPH OWENS-EL, Petitioner - Appellant, v. STATE OF MARYLAND; CITY OF BALTIMORE; PAMELA HOWERLL CAB CO., Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. (1:17-cv-03057-JKB) Submitted: June 21, 2018 Decided: June 25, 2018 Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpu
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1334 JAMES JOSEPH OWENS-EL, Petitioner - Appellant, v. STATE OF MARYLAND; CITY OF BALTIMORE; PAMELA HOWERLL CAB CO., Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. (1:17-cv-03057-JKB) Submitted: June 21, 2018 Decided: June 25, 2018 Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpub..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1334 JAMES JOSEPH OWENS-EL, Petitioner - Appellant, v. STATE OF MARYLAND; CITY OF BALTIMORE; PAMELA HOWERLL CAB CO., Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. (1:17-cv-03057-JKB) Submitted: June 21, 2018 Decided: June 25, 2018 Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Joseph Owens-El, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James Joseph Owens-El appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his mandamus petition for want of jurisdiction and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Owens-El v. Maryland, No. 1:17-cv-03057-JKB (D. Md. Nov. 9, 2017 & Mar. 5, 2018). We deny the motion for the court to intervene and 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. The motion for appointment of counsel is denied. AFFIRMED 2
