Taylor v. University of Maryland

Fourth Circuit

Taylor v. University of Maryland

485 F. App'x 630

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedOctober 15, 2012

DocketNo. 12-1827

StatusPublished

This text of 485 F. App'x 630 (Taylor v. University of Maryland) 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

Taylor v. University of Maryland, 485 F. App'x 630 (4th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Eugenna Aileen Taylor appeals the district court’s orders dismissing her complaint and denying her motions for sanctions and to amend the judgment. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Taylor v. Univ. Md., No. 8:11-cv-03008-AW (D. Md. May 2, 2012; July 2, 2012). We deny Taylor’s motions to amend her informal brief and to extend the time period to obtain counsel. 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Eugenna Aileen Taylor appeals the district court’s orders dismissing her complaint and denying her motions for sanctions and to amend the judgment. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Taylor v. Univ. Md., No. 8:11-cv-03008-AW (D. Md. May 2, 2012; July 2, 2012). We deny Taylor’s motions to amend her informal brief and to extend the time period to obtain counsel. 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)

485 F. App'x 630, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-university-of-maryland-ca4-2012.