TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Michael McRae v. State of Maryland, Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services Attorney General of the State of Maryland

McRae v. State of Md., Dep't of Pub. Safety & Corr. Servs. Attorney Gen. of the State of Md., 86 F.3d 1151 (4th Cir. 1996)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
May 28, 1996
Docket
No. 95-3122
Citations
86 F.3d 11511996 WL 2787581996 U.S. App. LEXIS 42219
Status
Unpublished

Opinion

86 F.3d 1151

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Michael MCRAE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE of Maryland, Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services; Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 95-3122.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 16, 1996. Decided May 28, 1996.

Michael McRae, Appellant Pro Se.

Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing his employment discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. McRae v. Maryland, No. CA-95-3388-S (D.Md. Nov. 21, 1995). We note that to the extent Appellant sought reconsideration of the district court's dismissal of his prior action, rather than to file a new action, relief was properly denied. Appellant presented no information to support a finding that the district court abused its discretion in determining that Appellant's first action was untimely. 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

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list