Muhammad v. Maryland Court of Appeals

Fourth Circuit

Muhammad v. Maryland Court of Appeals

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedDecember 19, 2008

Docket08-1399

StatusUnpublished

This text of Muhammad v. Maryland Court of Appeals (Muhammad v. Maryland Court of Appeals) 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

Muhammad v. Maryland Court of Appeals, (4th Cir. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1399

PATRICK J. MUHAMMAD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MARYLAND COURT OF APPEALS; ROBERT M. BELL; IRMA S. RAKER; ALAN M. WILNER; DALE R. CATHELL; GLENN T. HARRELL, JR.; LYNNE ANN BATTAGLIA; CLAYTON GREENE, JR., all to be located at Robert C. Murphy Court of Appeals Building, 361 Rowe Boulevard Annapolis, MD 21401; STATE OF MARYLAND; BOB ERHLICH, Governor; OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL; GARY W. KUC; MELVIN HIRSHMAN; MARIANNE LEE; ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND; JOHN DOE 3; JOHN DOE NEWSPAPER; JANE DOE NUMBER 2; MARVIN J. GARBIS, in his individual and professional capacities; CATHERINE C. BLAKE, in her individual and professional capacities; JANE DOE NEWSPAPER,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:06-cv-03444-CCB)

Submitted: December 16, 2008 Decided: December 19, 2008

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Patrick J. Muhammad, Appellant Pro Se. William Ferris Brockman, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM:

Patrick J. Muhammad appeals the district court’s

orders dismissing his civil rights complaint for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which

relief could be granted, and denying reconsideration of that

order. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court. See Muhammad v. Md. Ct. of Appeals, No. 1:06-

cv-03444-CCB (D. Md. Feb. 11 & Mar. 6, 2008). 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

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1399

PATRICK J. MUHAMMAD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MARYLAND COURT OF APPEALS; ROBERT M. BELL; IRMA S. RAKER; ALAN M. WILNER; DALE R. CATHELL; GLENN T. HARRELL, JR.; LYNNE ANN BATTAGLIA; CLAYTON GREENE, JR., all to be located at Robert C. Murphy Court of Appeals Building, 361 Rowe Boulevard Annapolis, MD 21401; STATE OF MARYLAND; BOB ERHLICH, Governor; OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL; GARY W. KUC; MELVIN HIRSHMAN; MARIANNE LEE; ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND; JOHN DOE 3; JOHN DOE NEWSPAPER; JANE DOE NUMBER 2; MARVIN J. GARBIS, in his individual and professional capacities; CATHERINE C. BLAKE, in her individual and professional capacities; JANE DOE NEWSPAPER,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:06-cv-03444-CCB)

Submitted: December 16, 2008 Decided: December 19, 2008

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Patrick J. Muhammad, Appellant Pro Se. William Ferris Brockman, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM:

Patrick J. Muhammad appeals the district court’s

orders dismissing his civil rights complaint for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which

relief could be granted, and denying reconsideration of that

order. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court. See Muhammad v. Md. Ct. of Appeals, No. 1:06-

cv-03444-CCB (D. Md. Feb. 11 & Mar. 6, 2008). 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)

Muhammad v. Maryland Court of Appeals, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/muhammad-v-maryland-court-of-appeals-ca4-2008.