Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Shafer v. Snook, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views3 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding an appeal filed by P. Mark Shafer of the district court's denial of his second motion to reopen his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The Fourth Circuit also denied Shafer's motions to amend his complaint, for appointment of counsel, and for oral argument, as well as his request for production of documents and mandamus relief.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2008-08-04 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 07-6833

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding an appeal filed by P. Mark Shafer of the district court's denial of his second motion to reopen his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The Fourth Circuit also denied Shafer's motions to amend his complaint, for appointment of counsel, and for oral argument, as well as his request for production of documents and mandamus relief.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    5 views3 pages

    Shafer v. Snook, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding an appeal filed by P. Mark Shafer of the district court's denial of his second motion to reopen his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The Fourth Circuit also denied Shafer's motions to amend his complaint, for appointment of counsel, and for oral argument, as well as his request for production of documents and mandamus relief.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 07-6833

    P. MARK SHAFER,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    GREGORY
    I.
    SNOOK,
    President
    for
    Washington
    County
    Commissioners; PAULA PRICE, Washington County Adult Protective
    Services Agent; PAULAS SUPERVISOR; CINDY DIAMOND, Esquire,
    Siskend, Grady, Rosen and Hoover Law Firm; STEVEN HOOVER,
    Hagerstown Police Department Detective; ARTHUR SMITH,
    Hagerstown Police Department Chief; JOE MICHAELS, Washington
    County Deputy States Attorney; CHARLES STRONG, Washington
    County States Attorney; DENNIS WEAVER, Washington County
    Clerk of Court - Circuit Court; STEPHEN SACKS, Esquire,
    Private Attorney; CARL CREEDEN, Washington County Public
    Defender; NANCY FORSTER, Maryland State Public Defender; CHRIS
    MCCABE, Secretary of Department of Human Resources; ANTHONY
    MCCANN, Secretary of Department of Health and Mental Hygiene;
    MELVIN HIRSHMAN, Bar Counsel for Attorney Grievance Commission
    - Maryland Bar; ROBERT EHRLICH, JR., Governor for the State of
    Maryland; STATE OF MARYLAND; WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (8:06cv-02222-PJM)

    Submitted:

    July 31, 2008

    Decided:

    August 4, 2008

    Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    P. Mark Shafer, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    - 2 -

    PER CURIAM:
    P. Mark Shafer appeals the district courts order denying
    his second motion to reopen his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000) action.
    have

    reviewed

    the

    record

    and

    find

    no

    reversible

    We

    error.

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district


    court.

    Shafer v. Snook, No. 8:06-cv-02222-PJM (D. Md. May 23,

    2007).

    We deny Shafers motions to amend his complaint, for

    appointment of counsel, and for oral argument, and we deny his


    request for production of documents and for mandamus relief.

    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

    - 3 -

    You might also like