Court Opinion

ID: 9892796
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-24 21:00:48.688179+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:42:39.358701
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1628      Doc: 11         Filed: 10/23/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1628

        MARK A. PANOWICZ,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        SHARON L. HANCOCK, in individual capacity; LISA YATES, Clerk of the Circuit
        Court for Charles County (in official capacity),

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
        Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (8:11-cv-02417-DKC)

        Submitted: October 19, 2023                                   Decided: October 23, 2023

        Before KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Mark A. Panowicz, Appellant Pro Se. Kathryn Elizabeth Hummel, OFFICE OF THE
        ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1628      Doc: 11        Filed: 10/23/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Mark A. Panowicz appeals the district court’s orders denying his Fed. R. Civ. P.

        60(b)(4)-(6), (d)(3) motions and his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend

        judgment. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

        affirm the district court’s orders. Panowicz v. Hancock, No. 8:11-cv-02417-DKC (D. Md.

        Apr. 28 & May 31, 2023). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

        contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would

        not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                     AFFIRMED

                                                    2