Charles Cephas v. Maryland Rural Development Cor

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to strike [998670782-2] Originating case number: 1:10-cv-00813-JFM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998714543]. Mailed to: Cephas. [11-1079]

Appeal: 11-1079

Document: 23

Date Filed: 11/02/2011

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1079

CHARLES T. CEPHAS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MARYLAND RURAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS;
CHERYL VICTORIA BEARD, Individually; ELAINE PATRICIA HILL,
Individually; MARY BOYCE, Individually; LEROY BOYCE, SR.,
Individually; REGINA M. FINCH, Individually; CHRISTINA
LOWMAN, Individually; RAYMOND SKINNER, Secretary; ANTHONY J.
MOHAN; CALVIN WINK, JR., CME, CMI; KEVIN BROOKS, Interim
Director,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:10-cv-00813-JFM)

Submitted:

October 27, 2011

Decided:

November 2, 2011

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles T. Cephas, Appellant Pro Se.
Jonathan R. Krasnoff,
Sarah Whynne Finnegan Rice, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland; David Alan Rosenberg, FORD &
HARRISON, LLP, Washington, DC, for Appellees.

Appeal: 11-1079

Document: 23

Date Filed: 11/02/2011

Page: 2 of 3

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 11-1079

Document: 23

Date Filed: 11/02/2011

Page: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Charles T. Cephas appeals the district court’s order
dismissing

his

civil

jurisdiction.

We

reversible error.

action

have

reviewed

1:10-cv-00813-JFM

(D.

Appellee

motion

dispense

with

lack
the

of

record

subject-matter
and

find

no

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
Cephas v. Md. Rural Dev. Corp., No.

by the district court.

Brooks’

for

oral

Md.
to

Dec.

10,

strike

argument

2010).
Cephas’

because

the

We

deny

reply
facts

as

moot

briefs.

We

and

legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3