Gorrell v. O'Malley

Fourth Circuit

Gorrell v. O'Malley

474 F. App'x 150

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJuly 12, 2012

DocketNo. 12-1234

StatusPublished

This text of 474 F. App'x 150 (Gorrell v. O'Malley) 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

Gorrell v. O'Malley, 474 F. App'x 150 (4th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Howard Lee Gorrell appeals the district court’s dismissal of his claims against Martin O’Malley, the Governor of Maryland, challenging a 2011 Maryland redistricting plan. The record establishes that Gorrell moved to Washington state after the commencement of this action. He is thus no longer a resident of Maryland and lacks standing to challenge the Governor’s redistricting plan. Because Gorrell lacks standing to proceed, we lack jurisdiction to review his claims. See, e.g., Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899, 904, 116 S.Ct. 1894, 135 L.Ed.2d 207 (1996); United States v. Hays, 515 U.S. 737, 745, 115 S.Ct. 2431, 132 L.Ed.2d 635 (1995). We therefore dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED.

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

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Howard Lee Gorrell appeals the district court’s dismissal of his claims against Martin O’Malley, the Governor of Maryland, challenging a 2011 Maryland redistricting plan. The record establishes that Gorrell moved to Washington state after the commencement of this action. He is thus no longer a resident of Maryland and lacks standing to challenge the Governor’s redistricting plan. Because Gorrell lacks standing to proceed, we lack jurisdiction to review his claims. See, e.g., Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899, 904, 116 S.Ct. 1894, 135 L.Ed.2d 207 (1996); United States v. Hays, 515 U.S. 737, 745, 115 S.Ct. 2431, 132 L.Ed.2d 635 (1995). We therefore dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

474 F. App'x 150, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gorrell-v-omalley-ca4-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack