Texte intégral
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1413
H. LEIGHTON LASKEY,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
STATE OF MARYLAND; CITY OF BALTIMORE; MAYOR AND CITY
COUNCIL, for the City of Baltimore; LAW DEPARTMENT, for the
City of Baltimore; CHRIS LUNDY, Defense Counsel; FRANK
CONAWAY, Clerk of the Court’s Baltimore City Circuit;
BALTIMORE CITY CIRCUIT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District
Judge. (1:14-cv-00853-WDQ)
Submitted: June 26, 2014 Decided: July 1, 2014
Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
H. Leighton Laskey, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
H. Leighton Laskey appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his civil action without prejudice pursuant to
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). On appeal, we confine
our review to the issues raised in the appellant’s informal
brief. 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Laskey does not fairly argue that
Younger abstention is inappropriate in his case. Rather, he
baldly alleges that the state court clerk falsified court
records in his state court action, that the action should have
been dismissed earlier for lack of prosecution, and that
Appellees are engaged in a conspiracy to deprive him of access
to the judicial system. These allegations are raised for the
first time on appeal, see Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250
(4th Cir. 1993) (declining to address on appeal claims not
presented to district court), and in any event, find no support
in the record. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
judgment. Laskey v. Maryland, No. 1:14-cv-00853-WDQ (D. Md.
Apr. 21, 2014). We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
-- 2 of 2 --