Wayne Resper v. Derek Baer

540 F. App'x 223
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided September 30, 2013·No. 13-6703·Unpublished

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Wayne Resper appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2006) as barred by the statute of limitations. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. See Resper v. Baer, No. 8:13-cv-00024-PJM (D.Md. Jan. 15 & Mar. 26, 2013). In addition, we note that “in Maryland, following the voluntary dismissal of a civil action without prejudice, a second complaint based upon the same facts still must be filed within the applicable limitations period.” Sheng Bi v. Gibson, 205 Md.App. 263, 45 A.3d 305, 309 (2012). * 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.

*

Federal courts must apply the forum state’s rules for tolling the statute of limitations. Bd. of Regents v. Tomanio, 446 U.S. 478, 483-84, 100 S.Ct. 1790, 64 L.Ed.2d 440 (1980).

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

Wayne Resper v. Derek Baer, 540 F. App'x 223 (4th Cir. 2013).

540 F. App'x 223 (Wayne Resper v. Derek Baer) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Board of Regents of Univ. of State of NY v. Tomanio
446 U.S. 478 (Supreme Court, 1980)
Sheng Bi v. Gibson
45 A.3d 305 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 2012)