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)
10-2090•Michael Sindram v. City of Takoma Park Police Department
10-2090Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitNov 24, 2010
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-2090
MICHAEL SINDRAM,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CITY OF TAKOMA PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT; K. GILBERT; MR.
GODELEWSKI; MR. WOLFF, #8352; TERRY JOHNSSON,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
Judge. (8:10-cv-00681-PJM)
Submitted: November 18, 2010 Decided: November 24, 2010
Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Sindram, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Michael Sindram appeals a district court order denying
his motion for clarification and modification of order and for
related relief, which was construed by the district court as a
motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the
district court’s order and affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. See Sindram v. City of Takoma Park Police, No.
8:10-cv-00681-PJM (D. Md. Aug. 19, 2010). 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.