Carr v. Miller

60 F.3d 821, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 24778, 1995 WL 386522
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit
DecidedJune 30, 1995
Docket94-2603
StatusPublished

This text of 60 F.3d 821 (Carr v. Miller) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Carr v. Miller, 60 F.3d 821, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 24778, 1995 WL 386522 (2d Cir. 1995).

Opinion

60 F.3d 821
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Christopher L. CARR, Sr., Individually and as next friend
and natural father of Jason M. Carr, minor; Jason
M. Carr, a minor, Plaintiffs--Appellants,
v.
Jean MILLER; Charles Miller; Edward Rollins, III;
Donaldson C. Cole, Jr.; State of Maryland, Second Judicial
Circuit Court for Cecil County; Other, as yet unidentified
Attorneys and/or PERSONS, and, all of them individually and
jointly with one another and in their individual and
official and administrative capacities, separate and
distinct, Defendants--Appellees.

No. 94-2603.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 28, 1995.
Decided June 30, 1995.

Christopher L. Carr, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.

PER CURIAM:

Before WILKINSON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Appellant appeals from the district court's orders dismissing his civil action and denying reconsideration. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Carr v. Miller, No. CA-94-2987-S (D. Md. Nov. 7, 1994; Nov. 17, 1994).* We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

*

The Appellant's motion for extraordinary relief pending appeal and pendente lite is denied

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
60 F.3d 821, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 24778, 1995 WL 386522, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carr-v-miller-ca2-1995.