Case Name: Michael SINDRAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF TAKOMA PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT; K. Gilbert; Mr. Godelewski; Mr. Wolff, # 8352; Terry Johnsson, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-11-24
Citations: 403 F. App'x 845
Docket Number: No. 10-2090
Parties: Michael SINDRAM, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. CITY OF TAKOMA PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT; K. Gilbert; Mr. Godelewski; Mr. Wolff, # 8352; Terry Johnsson, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 403
Pages: 845–846

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.