Sherry Studli v. Children and Youth Service

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to strike [999033915-2], denying Motion to strike [999033920-2]; denying Motion for other relief [999035799-2] Originating case number: 1:12-cv-01093-JKB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999076830]. Mailed to: Sherry Studli, Michael Bouyea, Mary Friedline. [12-2384]

Appeal: 12-2384

Doc: 20

Filed: 04/01/2013

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-2384

SHERRY STUDLI,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES; JOHN CASCIO, Judge; EUGENE
FIKE, Judge; JAMES C. MARKER, Somerset County Commissioner;
BRAD COBER, Somerset County Commissioner; PAMELA A. TOKAR
ICKES,
Somerset
County
Commissioner;
CHILD
PROTECTIVE
SERVICES; CHILDREN AND YOUTH AND FAMILIES CENTRAL REGIONAL
OFFICE,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
James K. Bredar, District Judge.
(1:12-cv-01093-JKB)

Submitted:

March 28, 2013

Decided:

April 1, 2013

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sherry Studli, Appellant Pro Se.
Marie M. Jones, JONES
PASSODELIS, PLLC, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Bradley J. Neitzel,
Michael Lee Bouyea, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND,
Baltimore, Maryland; Mary Lynch Friedline, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-2384

Doc: 20

Filed: 04/01/2013

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Sherry

Studli

appeals

the

district

court’s

order

dismissing her civil action and issuing a pre-filing injunction.
We

have

reviewed

the

record

and

find

no

reversible

error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court.

Studli v. Children & Youth Servs., No. 1:12-cv-01093-JKB

(D. Md. Nov. 6, 2012).

We deny Studli’s motions to strike

Appellees’ informal response briefs and for oral argument.
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

2