Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 11 views

    Queen v. Brennan, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from the district court's denial of a Rule 60(b) motion. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's ruling. It denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the reasoning provided by the district court in its earlier opinion.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Queen v. Brennan, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    11 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from the district court's denial of a Rule 60(b) motion. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's ruling. It denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the reasoning provided by the district court in its earlier opinion.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1998-05-14 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 97-7594

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from the district court's denial of a Rule 60(b) motion. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's ruling. It denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the reasoning provided by the district court in its earlier opinion.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    11 views2 pages

    Queen v. Brennan, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from the district court's denial of a Rule 60(b) motion. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's ruling. It denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the reasoning provided by the district court in its earlier opinion.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    You are on page 1of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 97-7594

    NICHOLAS J. QUEEN, SR.,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    EDWARD BRENNAN; J. JOSEPH CURRAN, JR., Attorney General of the State of Maryland,
    Respondents - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. Herbert N. Maletz, Senior Judge, sitting
    by designation. (CA-95-859-WMN)
    Submitted:

    April 29, 1998

    Decided:

    May 14, 1998

    Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.


    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Nicholas J. Queen, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Jefferson McClure Gray,
    OBER, KALER, GRIMES & SHRIVER, Towson, Maryland; Kathryn L. Grill,
    SMITH, SOMERVILLE & CASE, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant appeals the district court's order denying Appellant's Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. We have reviewed the record
    and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error.
    Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
    appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Queen v. Brennan,
    No. CA-95-859-WMN (D. Md. Oct. 23, 1997). 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.

    DISMISSED

    You might also like