Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

983 F.2d 1056

Docket No. 91-6343.

King v. Kramer (Po1)

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

Submitted: September 15, 1992 Decided: December 23, 1992

This page is marked noindex.

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1992-12-23

Relies on Fisher v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority · Asbury Leaphart, and Esther Leaphart v. Janet Hudson Sandy Laney Tim Taylor, Defendants · Vodrey v. Golden

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1992-12-23

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.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. Clarence E. Goetz, Chief Magistrate Judge. (CA-90-1883)

Cheryl M. King, Appellant Pro Se.

Linda B. Thall, Senior Assistant County Attorney, Ramona Bell-Pearson, COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellees.

D.Md.

AFFIRMED.

Before PHILLIPS, MURNAGHAN, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

OPINION

¶1

Cheryl M. King appeals from the district court's order denying her motion for reconsideration of a grant of partial summary judgment, and dismissing her civil rights charges on a jury verdict. Our review of the record discloses that King's arrest was supported by probable cause, see Fisher v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 690 F.2d 1133, 1138-39 (4th Cir. 1982), and that there was a sufficient factual basis for the conclusions reached by the jury. See Vodrey v. Golden, 864 F.2d 28, 30 n.4 (4th Cir. 1988). Accordingly, we affirm. 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

/983/f2d/1056 · .json · Public domain