Cheryl M. King v. Sidney Kramer, County Executive Montgomery County Municipal Government Marquis McClure Officer (Po1) D. Ferdock, Officer (Po3)
This text of 983 F.2d 1056 (Cheryl M. King v. Sidney Kramer, County Executive Montgomery County Municipal Government Marquis McClure Officer (Po1) D. Ferdock, Officer (Po3)) 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.
Opinion
983 F.2d 1056
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Cheryl M. KING, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Sidney KRAMER, County Executive; Montgomery County
Municipal Government; Marquis McClure, Officer
(PO1); D. Ferdock, Officer (PO3),
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 91-6343.
United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: September 15, 1992
Decided: December 23, 1992
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Clarence E. Goetz, Chief Magistrate Judge. (CA-90-1883)
Cheryl M. King, Appellant Pro Se.
Linda B. Thall, Senior Assistant County Attorney, Ramona Bell-Pearson, COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellees.
D.Md.
AFFIRMED.
Before PHILLIPS, MURNAGHAN, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
OPINION
Cheryl M. King appeals from the district court's order denying her motion for reconsideration of a grant of partial summary judgment, and dismissing her civil rights charges on a jury verdict. Our review of the record discloses that King's arrest was supported by probable cause, see Fisher v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 690 F.2d 1133, 1138-39 (4th Cir. 1982), and that there was a sufficient factual basis for the conclusions reached by the jury. See Vodrey v. Golden, 864 F.2d 28, 30 n.4 (4th Cir. 1988). Accordingly, we affirm. 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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
983 F.2d 1056, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 37152, 1992 WL 385248, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cheryl-m-king-v-sidney-kramer-county-executive-montgomery-county-ca4-1992.