Edward McReady v. Martin O'Malley

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion for leave to file [998688417-2]; terminating Motion to strike [998714528-2]; terminating Motion for other relief [998688453-2]; terminating Motion to reconsider [998688451-2]; terminating Motion for summary disposition (Local Rule 27(f)) [998617519-2]; terminating Motion to expedite decision [998617519-3] Originating case number: 8:08-cv-02347-RWT,8:08-cv-02386-RWT Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998807323]. Mailed to: McReady. [11-1451]

Appeal: 11-1451

Document: 36

Date Filed: 03/12/2012

Page: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1451

EDWARD C. MCREADY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MARTIN O'MALLEY, Honorable, in his official capacity as
Governor of the State of Maryland; UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF
MARYLAND;
WILLIAM
E.
KIRWAN;
UNIVERSITY
OF
MARYLAND
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE; SUSAN ALDRIDGE; LAWRENCE E. LEAK; GREG
VON LEHMAN; JOHN VOLPE; RHEA REED; RACHEL ZELKIND; SHAWNA
ACKER-BALL; MEGAN FARRELL; THOMAS HOGAN; STATE OF MARYLAND;
ELIZABETH MULHERRIN; ADELAIDE A. LAGNESE,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:08cv-02347-RWT; 8:08-cv-02386-RWT)

Submitted:

February 6, 2012

Decided:

March 12, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edward C. McReady, Appellant Pro Se.
Thomas Faulk, Assistant
Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-1451

Document: 36

Date Filed: 03/12/2012

Page: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Edward C. McReady appeals the district court’s order
granting

Defendants’

motion

for

consolidated civil actions.

summary

judgment

in

his

We have reviewed the record and

conclude there is no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm

for the reasons stated by the district court.

See McReady v.

O’Malley, Nos. 8:08-cv-02347-RWT; 8:08-cv-02386-RWT (D. Md. Mar.
31, 2011).

Further, because we grant McReady’s motion for leave

to file an amended informal brief in excess of the fifty-page
limitation ordered by the Clerk’s Office, we deny as moot all
other pending motions related to the length of McReady’s amended
informal brief, including Defendants’ motion to strike McReady’s
amended

informal

brief

and

McReady’s

motion

to

Defendants’ opposition to his enlarged informal brief.
deny

as

moot

McReady’s

expedited review.
facts

and

materials

legal
before

motions

for

summary

strike
We also

disposition

and

We dispense with oral argument because the
contentions

are

adequately

the

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.
AFFIRMED

2