Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

952 F.2d 1396

Docket No. 91-7683.

Jaindl v. Wright

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

Submitted Nov. 6, 1991. Decided Jan. 21, 1992.

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1992-01-21

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Warner Bros Inc Ag Dc v. American Broadcasting Companies Inc J · Kennedy v. Block · United States v. Mary Ann E. Lewellyn, United States of America v. Thomas L. Lewellyn

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1992-01-21

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore, No. CA-90-1005-R, Norman P. Ramsey, District Judge.

Herman Joseph Jaindl, appellant pro se.

Clyde H. Sorrell, Linda D. Berk, Susan M. Kidd, County Attorney's Office for the County of Montgomery, Rockville, Md., for appellees.

D.Md.

DISMISSED.

Before K.K. HALL and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

¶1

Herman Joseph Jaindl filed this appeal from the district court's order granting partial summary judgment against him in his civil action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988). Appellees have filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as moot because the parties have entered into an agreement settling the claims raised in Jaindl's complaint. Jaindl has consented to the dismissal of the appeal. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal as moot. See Kennedy v. Block, 784 F.2d 1220, 1222 (4th Cir.1986).

¶2

The grant of partial summary judgment by the district court presents no res judicata concerns. See Warner Bros., Inc. v. American Broadcasting Cos., 720 F.2d 231, 245 n. 11 (2d Cir.1983). Accordingly, we grant the motion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal rather than remanding the action to the district court. 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.

¶3

DISMISSED.

/952/f2d/1396 · .json · Public domain