Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Shirley Hirshauer v. Thomas Ross, 4th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    9 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief to Shirley A. Hirshauer, James A. Gerben, Jr., Randy W. Gerben, and Jason W. Gerben on their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's decision for the reasons stated in its opinion. The Court dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2016-01-19 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 15-2109

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief to Shirley A. Hirshauer, James A. Gerben, Jr., Randy W. Gerben, and Jason W. Gerben on their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's decision for the reasons stated in its opinion. The Court dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    9 views2 pages

    Shirley Hirshauer v. Thomas Ross, 4th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief to Shirley A. Hirshauer, James A. Gerben, Jr., Randy W. Gerben, and Jason W. Gerben on their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's decision for the reasons stated in its opinion. The Court dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 15-2109

    SHIRLEY A. HIRSHAUER; JAMES


    GERBEN; JASON W. GERBEN,

    A.

    GERBEN,

    JR.;

    RANDY

    W.

    Plaintiffs - Appellants,
    v.
    THOMAS G. ROSS, Judge; BROOKE SCHUMM, III; THE ESTATE OF
    GERALDINE GRAY; TERRY BRUMWELL; ALICE HALL; ELIZABETH
    OSHEA; HONORABLE THOMAS G. ROSS,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore.
    Catherine C. Blake, Chief District
    Judge. (1:15-cv-00832-CCB)

    Submitted:

    January 14, 2016

    Decided:

    January 19, 2016

    Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Shirley A. Hirshauer; James A. Gerben, Jr.; Randy W. Gerben;


    Jason W. Gerben, Appellants Pro Se.
    Alexis Burrell Rohde,
    Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland; Stephan Young
    Brennan, ILIFF, MEREDITH, WILDBERGER & BRENNAN, P.C., Pasadena,
    Maryland; Brooke Schumm, III, DANEKER, MCINTIRE, SCHUMM, PRINCE,
    Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Shirley

    A.

    Hirshauer,

    James

    A.

    Gerben,

    Jr.,

    Randy

    W.

    Gerben, and Jason W. Gerben appeal the district courts order


    denying relief on their 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2012) complaint.
    have

    reviewed

    the

    record

    and

    find

    no

    reversible

    We

    error.

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district


    court.

    Hirshauer v. Ross, No. 1:15-cv-00832-CCB (D. Md. Aug.

    26, 2015).
    legal
    before

    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

    contentions
    this

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in
    aid

    the
    the

    materials
    decisional

    process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like