Case ID: f-appx_403/html/0845-01.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

Michael SINDRAM, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. CITY OF TAKOMA PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT; K. Gilbert; Mr. Godelewski; Mr. Wolff, # 8352; Terry Johnsson, Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 10-2090.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Nov. 18, 2010.
    Decided: Nov. 24, 2010.
    Michael Sindram, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

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.