Case ID: f-appx_11/html/0191-01.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

T. Carlton RICHARDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND; Robert M. Bell, Chief Judge; John C. Eldridge, Judge; Lawrence F. Rodowsky, Judge; Irma S. Raker, Judge; Alan M. Wilner, Judge; Dale R. Cathell, Judge; Glenn T. Harrell, Judge, individually, and in their representative or regulatory capacities as their interests and liabilities may appear, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 00-2318.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted April 17, 2001.
    Decided April 27, 2001.
    T. Carlton Richardson, pro se.
    Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

T. Carlton Richardson appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his complaint, denying his motion for reconsideration, and denying his motion to vacate the court’s previous orders. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Richardson v. Court of Appeals, No. CA-00-2577S (D.Md. Sept. 5, 2000; filed Sept. 11, 2000, entered Sept. 12, 2000; and Sept. 26, 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.