Earl Richardson v. The Great State of Maryland
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
EARL L. RICHARDSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. THE GREAT STATE OF MARYLAND; CECIL COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICE; NICHOLAS RICCIUTI, Director of Cecil County Department of Social Services; WILLIAMS JONES, Employee of Department of Social Services; SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION; MRS. GULOTTI, Elkton Maryland Branch; MRS. DAVIDS, Elkton Maryland Branch; THE GREAT STATE OF WASHINGTON; CLALLAM COUNTY WASHINGTON; JIM JONES, Administrator; LINDA CLEVENGER, Administrator; DEPARTMENT OF PAROLE AND PROBATION, Defendants Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:08-cv-01087-CCB)
October 27, 2008
November 14, 2008
Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Earl L. Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. Julia Doyle Bernhardt, Assistant Attorney General, William Ferris Brockman, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland; Mark C. Jobson, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON, Olympia,
Washington; Kelly Hughes Iverson, GOODELL, DEVRIES, DANN, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Earl L. Richardson appeals the district court's order dismissing this action complaining about the termination of
social security benefits. no reversible error.
We have reviewed the record and find
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons Richardson v. The Great State of (D. Md. July the 2, 2008). and We legal
stated by the district court. Maryland, dispense No. with
1:08-cv-01087-CCB oral argument
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?