JACOB ROGINSKY, Dr v. Blake

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-2194
JACOB ROGINSKY, Dr.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
VERONICA V. BLAKE; WILLIAM F. OLMSTED, Law
Office of Olmsted & Olmsted; MARY SUE
GREISMAN, Law Offices of Greisman & Carroll;
PATRICIA N. DRUMMOND, Law Office of Drummond &
O'Brien; JAMES E. LEWIS, Ph.D., Psychology &
Education Associates; THE LAW OFFICE OF
OLMSTED & OLMSTED; THE LAW OFFICES OF GREISMAN
& CARROLL; THE LAW OFFICES OF DRUMMOND &
O'BRIEN; PSYCHOLOGY & EDUCATION ASSOCIATES,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
AMY J. BRAGUNIER, Honorable, individually and
in her official capacity; ROBERT C. NALLEY,
Honorable, individually and in his official
capacity; jointly, severally and individually,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.
(CA-00-348-AW)
Submitted: December 14, 2000 Decided: December 19, 2000

-- 1 of 2 --

2
Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jacob Roginsky, Appellant Pro Se. William Franklin Olmsted, Edward
W. Olmsted, LaPlata, Maryland; Jeffrey J. Hines, Richard Wayne
Driscoll, ECCLESTON & WOLF, Washington, D.C.; Phillip R. Zuber,
Upper Marlboro, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Dr. Jacob Roginsky appeals the district court’s order denying
relief on his civil complaint. We have reviewed the record and the
district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. According-
ly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Roginsky
v. Blake, No. CA-00-348-AW (D. Md. filed Aug. 11; entered Aug. 14,
2000). 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 --