Court Opinion

ID: 9381132
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-21 21:01:12.647739+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:30.335009
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2108      Doc: 22         Filed: 03/20/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-2108

        IRVIN J. BETCH; PATRICIA A. BETCH,

                            Plaintiffs - Appellants,

                     v.

        ATTORNEY MAURICE W. O’BRIEN; ATTORNEY DIANE SALLY ROSENBERG;
        ATTORNEY CRISTIAN ALEC MENDOZA; ATTORNEY MARK D. MEYER;
        BALTIMORE HOME WHOLESALERS, LLC; ROSENBERG & ASSOCIATES, LLC,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
        Paula Xinis, District Judge. (8:22-cv-00894-PX)

        Submitted: March 16, 2023                                         Decided: March 20, 2023

        Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Irvin J. Betch and Patricia A. Betch, Appellants Pro Se. Sara Nicholson Tussey,
        ROSENBERG & ASSOCIATES, LLC, Bethesda, Maryland; Byron L. Huffman, BYRON
        L. HUFFMAN, PC, Columbia, Maryland, for Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2108      Doc: 22        Filed: 03/20/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Irvin and Patricia Betch appeal the district court’s orders dismissing their 42 U.S.C.

        § 1983 complaint as barred by res judicata and denying reconsideration. We have reviewed

        the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. Betch v. O’Brien,

        No. 8:22-cv-00894-PX (D. Md. Aug. 18, 2022; Sept. 15, 2022). Additionally, we deny the

        pending motion for judicial notice. 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