Cephas v. Maryland Rural Development Corp. Board of Directors

Fourth Circuit

Cephas v. Maryland Rural Development Corp. Board of Directors

452 F. App'x 401

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedNovember 2, 2011

DocketNo. 11-1079

StatusPublished

This text of 452 F. App'x 401 (Cephas v. Maryland Rural Development Corp. Board of Directors) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cephas v. Maryland Rural Development Corp. Board of Directors, 452 F. App'x 401 (4th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Charles T. Cephas appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Cephas v. Md. Rural Dev. Corp., No. 1:10-cv-00813-JFM (D.Md. Dec. 10, 2010). We deny as moot Appellee Brooks’ motion to strike Cephas’ reply briefs. 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.

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

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Charles T. Cephas appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Cephas v. Md. Rural Dev. Corp., No. 1:10-cv-00813-JFM (D.Md. Dec. 10, 2010). We deny as moot Appellee Brooks’ motion to strike Cephas’ reply briefs. 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

452 F. App'x 401, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cephas-v-maryland-rural-development-corp-board-of-directors-ca4-2011.