Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

952 F.2d 396

Docket Nos. 91-1203, 91-1204.

Litzenberg v. H Litzenberg P Litzenberg

Full caption · 2 consolidated cases

  • Dorothy P. LITZENBERGv.John H. LITZENBERG, Defendant-Appellee, and Michael Birch, Defendant. Dorothy P
  • LITZENBERGv.John H. LITZENBERG

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

Submitted Dec. 5, 1991. Decided Dec. 26, 1991.

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently November 2000

4 state decisions

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1915

Relies on Matthews v. Jackson

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam ·

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. (CA-91-2051-R, CA-91-2270-R), Norman P. Ramsey, District Judge.

Dorothy P. Litzenberg, appellant pro se.

D.Md.

AFFIRMED.

Before DONALD RUSSELL, MURNAGHAN and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

¶1

Dorothy P. Litzenberg appeals from the district court's orders dismissing her two civil complaints pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (1988). Our review of the record and the district court's opinions discloses that these appeals are without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.* Litzenberg v. Litzenberg, Nos. CA-91-2051-R, CA-91-2270-R (D.Md. Aug. 15, 1991). 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.

¶2

AFFIRMED.

*

We deny Litzenberg's motions for oral argument and to appoint counsel for her

/952/f2d/396 · .json · Public domain