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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 11-1079 Document: 23 Date Filed: 11/02/2011 Page: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1079 CHARLES T. CEPHAS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MARYLAND RURAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BOARD OF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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Appeal: 11-1079 Document: 23 Date Filed: 11/02/2011 Page: 2 of 3 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 Appeal: 11-1079 Document: 23 Date Filed: 11/02/2011 Page: 3 of 3 PER CURIAM: Charles T. Cephas appeals the district court’s order dismissing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

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?