Filed: Sep. 30, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-2179 ANGELLO A. D. OSBORNE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PETER GEORGIADES, Police Corporal, Defendant - Appellee, and DIONE WHITE, LGSW; MEREDITH LYNN PIPITONE, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:14-cv-00182-RDB) Submitted: March 20, 2018 Decided: September 30, 2019 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, KING, Circuit Judge, and TRAX
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-2179 ANGELLO A. D. OSBORNE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PETER GEORGIADES, Police Corporal, Defendant - Appellee, and DIONE WHITE, LGSW; MEREDITH LYNN PIPITONE, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:14-cv-00182-RDB) Submitted: March 20, 2018 Decided: September 30, 2019 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, KING, Circuit Judge, and TRAXL..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-2179 ANGELLO A. D. OSBORNE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PETER GEORGIADES, Police Corporal, Defendant - Appellee, and DIONE WHITE, LGSW; MEREDITH LYNN PIPITONE, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:14-cv-00182-RDB) Submitted: March 20, 2018 Decided: September 30, 2019 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, KING, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Angello A. D. Osborne, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Angello A. D. Osborne appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Peter Georgiades on qualified immunity grounds. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Osborne v. Georgiades, No. 1:14-cv-00182-RDB (D. Md. Sept. 11, 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
