Case Name: Robert E. MEADE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ronald SILKWORTH, Judge; Clayton Greene, Jr., Judge; The Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, Defendants-Appellees; Robert E. Meade, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ronald Silkworth, Judge; The Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County; Gail Schaffer, Judge; Judith Duckett, Judge; Nancy Phelps, Judge; The Orphans' Court for Anne Arundel County, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-09-25
Citations: 47 F. App'x 647
Docket Number: Nos. 02-1345, 02-1750
Parties: Robert E. MEADE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ronald SILKWORTH, Judge; Clayton Greene, Jr., Judge; The Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, Defendants-Appellees. Robert E. Meade, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ronald Silkworth, Judge; The Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County; Gail Schaffer, Judge; Judith Duckett, Judge; Nancy Phelps, Judge; The Orphans’ Court for Anne Arundel County, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 47
Pages: 647–648

Head Matter:
Robert E. MEADE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ronald SILKWORTH, Judge; Clayton Greene, Jr., Judge; The Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, Defendants-Appellees. Robert E. Meade, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ronald Silkworth, Judge; The Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County; Gail Schaffer, Judge; Judith Duckett, Judge; Nancy Phelps, Judge; The Orphans’ Court for Anne Arundel County, Defendants-Appellees.
Nos. 02-1345, 02-1750.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 29, 2002.
Decided Sept. 25, 2002.
Robert E. Meade, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Robert E. Meade appeals the district court's orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaints. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See Meade v. Silkworth, No. CA-02-558-MJG (D.Md. Feb. 26, 2002); Meade v. Silkworth, No. CA-02-1854-MJG; No. CA-02-1859-MJG (D. Md. June 4, 2002). 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.