The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
09-1699•Michael Edward Kennedy v. L. BRUCE WADE, Judge, District Court of Maryland for Wicomico County
09-1699Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitOct 19, 2009
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-1699
MICHAEL EDWARD KENNEDY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
L. BRUCE WADE, Judge, District Court of Maryland for
Wicomico County; ROBERT M. BELL, Chief Judge, Court of
Appeals for the State of Maryland; SALLY D. ADKINS, Judge,
Court of Appeals for the State of Maryland; GLENN T HARRELL,
JR., Judge, Court of Appeals for the State of Maryland;
LYNNE ANN BATTAGLIA, Judge, Court of Appeals for the State
of Maryland; CLAYTON GREENE, JR., Judge, Court of Appeals
for the State of Maryland; JOSEPH F. MURPHY, JR., Judge,
Court of Appeals for the State of Maryland; MARY ELLEN
BARBERA, Judge, Court of Appeals for the State of Maryland,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:09-cv-01433-RDB)
Submitted: October 15, 2009 Decided: October 19, 2009
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Edward Kennedy, Appellant Pro Se. Kendra Young Ausby,
Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Michael Edward Kennedy appeals the district court’s
order dismissing his motion seeking a temporary restraining
order and preliminary injunction. We have reviewed the record
and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. Kennedy v. Wade, No.
1:09-cv-01433-RDB (D. Md. June 8, 2009). We deny Kennedy’s
motion for injunctive relief. 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 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.