Case ID: f-appx_486/html/0387-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

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.
    No. 12-6666.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Oct. 2, 2012.
    Decided: Nov. 5, 2012.
    John William Fishback, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

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, 2012 WL 1145034 (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.