Cornish v. Baltimore City

Fourth Circuit

Cornish v. Baltimore City

621 F. App'x 185

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedOctober 22, 2015

DocketNo. 15-1709

StatusPublished

This text of 621 F. App'x 185 (Cornish v. Baltimore City) 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

Cornish v. Baltimore City, 621 F. App'x 185 (4th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Cornell D.M. Judge Cornish appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and denying reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Cornish v. Balt. City, No. 1:14-cv-03117-GLR (D.Md. May ■15, 2015, June 26, 2015). We grant Cornish’s motion for leave to file a reply brief exceeding this Court’s length limitations and deny his motion to add copyrighted work to the appeal. 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.

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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Cornell D.M. Judge Cornish appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and denying reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Cornish v. Balt. City, No. 1:14-cv-03117-GLR (D.Md. May ■15, 2015, June 26, 2015). We grant Cornish’s motion for leave to file a reply brief exceeding this Court’s length limitations and deny his motion to add copyrighted work to the appeal. 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

621 F. App'x 185, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cornish-v-baltimore-city-ca4-2015.