Case Name: 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
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-04-27
Citations: 11 F. App'x 191
Docket Number: No. 00-2318
Parties: 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.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 11
Pages: 191–192

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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 rea soning 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.