Thomas Stack, Jr. v. Outstanding Marine

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999264177-2]. Originating case number: 1:13-cv-01835-WMN. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999307714]. [13-2471]

Appeal: 13-2471

Doc: 9

Filed: 03/04/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-2471

THOMAS FRANCIS STACK, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
OUTSTANDING MARINE; JAMES E. STACK; COLONEL GEORGE JOHNSON,
MD/DNR; OFFICER R. KAUFMAN; OFFICER PHILLIPS; JOHN GRIFFIN,
Maryland Department of Natural Resources; BRENDA DONALD,
Maryland Human Resources Agency; SKIP BOLINGER; CARL
SNOWDEN, Civil Rights Director; STEVEN P. LEMMEY; GIANT
FOOD; RICHARD BAKER; TERRY KOKOLIS; JOHN E. GUNNING; EDWARD
A. HOLDEN; Harbormaster J. P. WALTERS; BRUCE LALONDE,
Director, Oasis Opportunity Center; OFFICER GARVEY; MARY
STACK DIXON,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
STATE OF MARYLAND; MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
(Police),
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
William M. Nickerson, Senior District
Judge. (1:13-cv-01835-WMN)

Submitted:

February 27, 2014

Decided:

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

March 4, 2014

Appeal: 13-2471

Doc: 9

Filed: 03/04/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas Francis Stack, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 13-2471

Doc: 9

Filed: 03/04/2014

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Thomas
court’s

orders

Francis

Stack,

dismissing

his

civil

reviewed

appeals
complaints
record

and
and

district
denying

We

reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated

find

no

Stack v. Outstanding Marine, No. 1:13-

cv-01835-WMN (D. Md. Nov. 7, 2013).
appointment of counsel.

the

the

reconsideration.

by the district court.

have

Jr.,

We deny Stack’s motion for

We dispense with oral 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