Court Opinion

ID: 9391685
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-02 21:00:36.926873+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:41.890141
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1194      Doc: 26         Filed: 05/01/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 21-1194

        MATTHEW O’REILLY,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        ADAM TSOTTLES, Route                Manager,     Waste    Management;        WASTE
        MANAGEMENT, INC.,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:18-cv-03622-GLR)

        Submitted: April 20, 2023                                             Decided: May 1, 2023

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

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Matthew O’Reilly, Appellant Pro Se. Geoffrey M. Gamble, SAUL EWING LLP,
        Baltimore, Maryland; John F. Stoviak, SAUL EWING LLP, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
        for Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1194      Doc: 26         Filed: 05/01/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Matthew O’Reilly appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his civil action for

        failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and denying reconsideration. We

        have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. O’Reilly

        v. Tsottles, No. 1:18-cv-03622-GLR (D. Md., Mar. 30, 2020 & Feb. 8, 2021). We deny

        O’Reilly’s motion for partial summary affirmance. 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