UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-2139
MICHAEL A. MCNEIL,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
STATE OF MARYLAND; HOWARD COUNTY, Maryland; HOWARD COUNTY
CIRCUIT COURT; DIANE O. LEASURE, Chief Administrative
Judge, in her Official and Individual Capacity; LOUIS A.
BECKER, III, Associate Judge, in his Official Capacity;
MARY M. KRAMER, Master in Chancery, in her Official
Capacity; LISA S. MOHINK, Family Law Coordinator, in her
Official and Individual Capacity; PATRICIA BRIGHT, Court
Social Worker, in her Official and Individual Capacity;
CHRISTINIA BIEGANSKI, Supervised Visitation Center Manager,
in her Official and Individual Capacity; SUSAN R. GNATT,
Supervisory Court Reporter, in her Official and Individual
Capacity; STEPHEN A. DRAZIN; PETER V. MARKUSKI, JR.;
SARAH P. MCNEIL; VINCENT LOVE; M. SLUTSKY & ASSOCIATES,
INC.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District
Judge. (8:11-cv-02495-DKC)
Submitted: January 17, 2013 Decided: January 22, 2013
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael A. McNeil, Appellant Pro Se. Hugh Scott Curtis, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland; Louis
Paul Ruzzi, HOWARD COUNTY OFFICE OF LAW, Ellicott City,
Maryland; Stephen A. Drazin, Columbia, Maryland; Jeffrey Wayne
Bernstein, GOOZMAN, BERNSTEIN & MARKUSKI, Laurel, Maryland;
Sarah P. McNeil, Ellicott City, Maryland; Timothy J. Mummert,
Ferndale, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Michael A. McNeil appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint and
related claims. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by
the district court. McNeil v. Maryland, No. 8:11-cv-02495-DKC
(D. Md. Aug. 22, 2012). We deny McNeil’s motion to strike the
Appellees’ briefs and 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