Case Name: Michael ROSNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Judge John FADER, II, Individually and in his Official Capacity; State of Maryland; Chief Judge Robert Bell; John G. Turnbell; Gordon, Feinblatt, R, H, & H, LLC, Res. Agent Herbert Goldman; William C. Mulford, II; State of Maryland-Martin O'Malley; Judge Pamela Lee North; Sheila K. Sachs, Gordon, Feinblatt, R, H, & H, LLC; Herbert Goldman, Gordon, Feinblatt, R, H, & H, LLC, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-10-08
Citations: 333 F. App'x 719
Docket Number: No. 09-1857
Parties: Michael ROSNER, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Judge John FADER, II, Individually and in his Official Capacity; State of Maryland; Chief Judge Robert Bell; John G. Turnbell; Gordon, Feinblatt, R, H, & H, LLC, Res. Agent Herbert Goldman; William C. Mulford, II; State of Maryland-Martin O’Malley; Judge Pamela Lee North; Sheila K. Sachs, Gordon, Feinblatt, R, H, & H, LLC; Herbert Goldman, Gordon, Feinblatt, R, H, & H, LLC, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before MOTZ, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 333
Pages: 719–720

Head Matter:
Michael ROSNER, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Judge John FADER, II, Individually and in his Official Capacity; State of Maryland; Chief Judge Robert Bell; John G. Turnbell; Gordon, Feinblatt, R, H, & H, LLC, Res. Agent Herbert Goldman; William C. Mulford, II; State of Maryland-Martin O’Malley; Judge Pamela Lee North; Sheila K. Sachs, Gordon, Feinblatt, R, H, & H, LLC; Herbert Goldman, Gordon, Feinblatt, R, H, & H, LLC, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 09-1857.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 24, 2009.
Decided: Oct. 8, 2009.
Michael Rosner, Appellant Pro Se.
Before MOTZ, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Rosner appeals the district court's order dismissing his civil action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant's Brief, see 4th Cir. R. 34(b), and Rosner's brief asserts no argument pertaining to the dispositive issues identified by the district court. In any event, we conclude the district court's decision was free of error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order. Further, we deny Rosner's motion to remove his state court action to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. 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.