Filed: Jan. 24, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-6865 SAVINO BRAXTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ARCANGELO M. TUMINELLI, Attorney at Law, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. (1:18-cv-00508-JKB) No. 18-6866 SAVINO BRAXTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JOHN F. PURCELL, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, a
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-6865 SAVINO BRAXTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ARCANGELO M. TUMINELLI, Attorney at Law, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. (1:18-cv-00508-JKB) No. 18-6866 SAVINO BRAXTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JOHN F. PURCELL, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-6865
SAVINO BRAXTON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ARCANGELO M. TUMINELLI, Attorney at Law,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. (1:18-cv-00508-JKB)
No. 18-6866
SAVINO BRAXTON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JOHN F. PURCELL,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:15-cv-02828-GLR)
Submitted: January 11, 2019 Decided: January 24, 2019
Before AGEE and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Savino Braxton, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
In No. 18-6865, Savino Braxton appeals the district court’s order denying relief on
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. In No. 18-6866, he appeals the district court’s
orders denying relief on a separate § 1983 complaint and denying his motion for
reconsideration. We have reviewed the records and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Braxton v. Tuminneli,
No. 1:18-cv-00508-JKB (D. Md. June 22, 2018); Savino v. Purcell, No. 1:15-cv-02828-
GLR (D. Md. Nov. 27, 2017 & June 26, 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
3