Bobby Chen v. Mayor & City Council

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999127313-2]; granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999095974-2] Originating case number: 1:11-cv-03227-GLR Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999237474]. Mailed to: Bobby Chen. [13-1375]

Appeal: 13-1375

Doc: 31

Filed: 11/12/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1375

BOBBY CHEN,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE; MICHAEL BRAVERMAN,
Department
of
Housing
and
Community
Development
of
Baltimore City; JEROME J. DORICH, JR., Department of
Housing and Community Development of Baltimore City;
WILLIAM
BOLDEN,
Department
of
Housing
and
Community
Development of Baltimore City; P&J CONTRACTING COMPANY,
INC.,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. George L. Russell, III, District Judge.
(1:11-cv-03227-GLR)

Submitted:

November 4, 2013

Decided:

November 12, 2013

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bobby Chen, Appellant Pro Se. Adam S. Levine, Steven John
Potter, BALTIMORE CITY LAW DEPARTMENT, Baltimore, Maryland;
Kristen Nichole Nesbitt, GOODELL DEVRIES LEECH & DANN, LLP,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Appeal: 13-1375

Doc: 31

Filed: 11/12/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 13-1375

Doc: 31

Filed: 11/12/2013

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Bobby

Chen

appeals

the

district

court’s

order

dismissing the complaint in this action for failure to effect
service of process.
reversible error.
by

the

district

We have reviewed the record and find no

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
court.

Chen

v.

Mayor

&

City

Council

of

Baltimore, No. 1:11-cv-03227-GLR (D. Md. Feb. 22, 2013).

We

deny

to

the

proceed

motion
in

forma

for

appointment

pauperis,

and

of

counsel,

dispense

with

grant
oral

leave

argument

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

AFFIRMED

3