Roginsky v. Blake ( 2000 )

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2194 JACOB ROGINSKY, Dr., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus VERONICA V. BLAKE; WILLIAM F. OLMSTED, Law Office of Olmsted & Olmsted; MARY SUE GREISMAN, Law Offices of Greisman & Carroll; PATRICIA N. DRUMMOND, Law Office of Drummond & O'Brien; JAMES E. LEWIS, Ph.D., Psychology & Education Associates; THE LAW OFFICE OF OLMSTED & OLMSTED; THE LAW OFFICES OF GREISMAN & CARROLL; THE LAW OFFICES OF DRUMMOND & O'BRIEN; PSYCHOLOGY & EDUCATION ASSOCIATES, Defendants - Appellees, and AMY J. BRAGUNIER, Honorable, individually and in her official capacity; ROBERT C. NALLEY, Honorable, individually and in his official capacity; jointly, severally and individually, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-00-348-AW) Submitted: December 14, 2000 Decided: December 19, 2000 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jacob Roginsky, Appellant Pro Se. William Franklin Olmsted, Edward W. Olmsted, LaPlata, Maryland; Jeffrey J. Hines, Richard Wayne Driscoll, ECCLESTON & WOLF, Washington, D.C.; Phillip R. Zuber, Upper Marlboro, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Dr. Jacob Roginsky appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his civil complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. According- ly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Roginsky v. Blake, No. CA-00-348-AW (D. Md. filed Aug. 11; entered Aug. 14, 2000). 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 2