Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • D'Alessandro v. Montgomery County, Maryland, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    0 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a court case in which Michael Richard D'Alessandro appealed the district court's denial of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Montgomery County, Maryland and several individuals. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to deny D'Alessandro's complaint for the reasons stated in the lower court's ruling. The Fourth Circuit decided the case without oral arguments, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2010-05-28 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 10-6296

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes a court case in which Michael Richard D'Alessandro appealed the district court's denial of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Montgomery County, Maryland and several individuals. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to deny D'Alessandro's complaint for the reasons stated in the lower court's ruling. The Fourth Circuit decided the case without oral arguments, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    0 views2 pages

    D'Alessandro v. Montgomery County, Maryland, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case in which Michael Richard D'Alessandro appealed the district court's denial of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Montgomery County, Maryland and several individuals. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to deny D'Alessandro's complaint for the reasons stated in the lower court's ruling. The Fourth Circuit decided the case without oral arguments, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 10-6296

    MICHAEL RICHARD DALESSANDRO,


    Plaintiff Appellant,
    v.
    MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND; SUZYK MALAGARY; JOHN DOE, Case
    Manager; GRANT CLARK, Property Manager,
    Defendants Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Greenbelt.
    Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
    Judge. (8:09-cv-00190-PJM)

    Submitted:

    May 20, 2010

    Decided:

    May 28, 2010

    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Michael Richard DAlessandro, Appellant


    Lisehora Kane, COUNTY ATTORNEYS OFFICE,
    for Appellees.

    Pro Se.
    Rockville,

    Patricia
    Maryland,

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Michael
    courts

    order

    complaint.
    error.

    Richard

    denying

    DAlessandro

    relief

    on

    his

    42

    appeals
    U.S.C.

    the

    district

    1983

    (2006)

    We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

    district court.

    DAlessandro v. Montgomery County, No. 8:09-cv-

    00190-PJM (D. Md. filed Jan. 20, 2009; entered Jan. 21, 2010).
    We

    dispense

    with

    oral

    argument

    because

    the

    facts

    and

    legal

    contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the


    court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like