UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-2308
HONG TANG,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
KURT L. SCHMOKE, President of the University of Baltimore; DARLENE
BRANNIGAN SMITH, Executive Vice President; JOSEPH S. WOOD, Provost
(2009-2016); KATHLEEN ANDERSON, Dean of Students; ROGER E.
HARTLEY, Dean of the College of Public Affairs; CHRISTY LEE KOONTZ,
Former Assistant Dean of Students; PATRIA DE LANCER JULNES, Former
Instructor,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 21-1243
HONG TANG,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
KURT L. SCHMOKE, President of the University of Baltimore; DARLENE
BRANNIGAN SMITH, Executive Vice President; JOSEPH S. WOOD, Provost
(2009-2016); KATHLEEN ANDERSON, Dean of Students; ROGER E.
HARTLEY, Dean of the College of Public Affairs; CHRISTY LEE KOONTZ,
Former Assistant Dean of Students; PATRIA DE LANCER JULNES, Former
Instructor,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Stephanie A. Gallagher, District Judge. (1:19-cv-02965-SAG)
Submitted: July 23, 2021 Decided: August 5, 2021
Before WYNN, FLOYD, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Hong Tang, Appellant Pro Se. Lillian Lane Reynolds, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Hong Tang appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
complaint and denying his motions for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s dismissal on statute of
limitations grounds for the reasons stated by the district court. Tang v. Schmoke, No.
1:19-cv-02965-SAG (D. Md. Nov. 6, 2020; July 27, 2020; Mar. 3, 2021). Because the Fed.
R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration was included in the electronic record before
this court, we deny as moot the motion to supplement the record on appeal with a copy of
the motion. 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