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)
12-6666•John William Fishback v. State of Maryland
12-6666Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitNov 5, 2012
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6666
JOHN WILLIAM FISHBACK,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF MARYLAND; CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY;
MARYLAND COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS; CITY OF BALTIMORE; DANIEL
H. GINSBURG; BENNETT & BAIR; ARTHUR M. FRANK; FRANK M.
CONAWAY; LESLIE D. GRADET; GARI BAIR; EMANUEL BROWN; ALLEN
L. SCHWARTZ; TWILLA DRIGGINS; PATRICIA C. JESSEMY,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:12-cv-00927-JFM)
Submitted: October 2, 2012 Decided: November 5, 2012
Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John William Fishback, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
John William Fishback appeals the district court’s
order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2006). We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. See Fishback v. Maryland,
No. 1:12-cv-00927-JFM (D. Md. Apr. 4, 2012). We deny Fishback’s
motion for appointment of counsel. 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.