Richard Edward Janey v. MR. MEIKLEJOHN, Anne Arundel County Commission Office, 102

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-6683
RICHARD EDWARD JANEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
MR. MEIKLEJOHN, Anne Arundel County Commission
Office, #102,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 00-6822
RICHARD EDWARD JANEY,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MR. MEIKLEJOHN, Anne Arundel County Commission
Office, #102,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Harvey II, Senior District Judge.
(CA-98-1646)

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Submitted: September 20, 2000 Decided: October 19, 2000
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
No. 00-6683 affirmed and No. 00-6822 dismissed by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Richard Edward Janey, Appellant Pro Se. Phillip F. Scheibe,
Hamilton F. Tyler, Julie Theresa Sweeney, ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY
OFFICE OF LAW, Annapolis, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
In No. 00-6683, Richard Edward Janey appeals the district
court’s order of judgment denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983
(West Supp. 2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the
district court’s orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
in No. 00-6683, we affirm the district court’s orders on the rea-
soning of the district court. See Janey v. Meiklejohn, No. CA-98-
1646 (D. Md. Apr. 27, 2000). In light of our disposition of Janey’s
appeal, we dismiss Meiklejohn’s cross-appeal, No. 00-6822, as moot.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court
and argument would not aid the decisional process.
No. 00-6683 - AFFIRMED
No. 00-6822 - DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --