Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 9 views

    Hahn v. MD Transportation, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Robert Hahn's case against the Maryland Transportation Authority Police. The district court dismissed the case because the defendant is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so they affirmed the district court's ruling that the defendant is immune from suit.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    Hahn v. MD Transportation, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    9 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Robert Hahn's case against the Maryland Transportation Authority Police. The district court dismissed the case because the defendant is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so they affirmed the district court's ruling that the defendant is immune from suit.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2004-09-10 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 04-1388

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Robert Hahn's case against the Maryland Transportation Authority Police. The district court dismissed the case because the defendant is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so they affirmed the district court's ruling that the defendant is immune from suit.

    Copyright:

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

    Hahn v. MD Transportation, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Robert Hahn's case against the Maryland Transportation Authority Police. The district court dismissed the case because the defendant is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so they affirmed the district court's ruling that the defendant is immune from suit.

    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. 04-1388

    ROBERT HAROLD HAHN, SR.,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    MARYLAND TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY POLICE,
    Defendant - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-033412-AMD)

    Submitted:

    August 27, 2004

    Decided:

    September 10, 2004

    Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Robert Harold Hahn, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.


    Karen June Kruger,
    OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Robert Harold Hahn, Sr., appeals the district courts
    order dismissing this action because Defendant is immune from suit
    under the Eleventh Amendment. We have reviewed the record and find
    no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
    by the district court.

    See Hahn v. Maryland Trans. Auth. Police,

    No. CA-03-3412-AMD (D. Md. Feb. 24, 2004).

    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

    - 2 -

    You might also like