Williams v. Carter

Related Cases

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1193 DAVID M. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CLAYTON C. CARTER, individually and as Asso- ciate Judge for the Circuit Court of Queen Anne's County and the Second Judicial Circuit for the State of Maryland; GEORGE B. RASIN, JR., individually and as Associate Judge for Kent County and Chief Judge of the Second Judicial Circuit for the State of Maryland, Defendants - Appellees, and JOHN C. NORTH, II, individually and as asso- ciate Judge for the Circuit Court for Talbot County, and the Second Judicial Circuit for the State of Maryland; TALBOT COUNTY, MARY- LAND, a/k/a The County Council of Talbot County, a municipal body corporate and politic; JAMES WISE, individually and as Associate Judge for the Circuit Court for Caroline County and the Second Judicial Circuit for the State of Maryland; CAROLINE COUNTY, MARYLAND, a/k/a The Board of County Commissioners for Carolina County, a municipal body corporate and politic; DONALDSON C. COLE, JR., individually and as associate Judge for the Circuit Court for Cecil County and the Second Judicial Circuit for the State of Mary- land; CECIL COUNTY, MARYLAND, a/k/a Board of County Commissioners of Cecil County, Mary- land, a municipal body corporate and politic; QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY, a/k/a The Board of County Commissioners for Queen Anne's County, Mary- land, a municipal body corporate and politic; JENNIFER BODINE; PHILIP C. FOSTER; WALLER S. HAIRSTON; GAIL HANDLY; JERI BAKER; JOAN B. TURNER; CHESAPEAKE PUBLISHING CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frank A. Kaufman, Senior District Judge. (CA-85-3088-K) Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: June 3, 1996 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David M. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Alvin Ira Frederick, ECCLESTON & WOLF, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). 2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's orders directing a response to and granting defendants' motion for attorneys fees and costs. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Williams v. Carter, No. CA-85- 3088-K (D. Md. Oct. 30, 1995 & Dec. 28, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate- ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3