106 F.3d 390 (4th Cir. 1997), 96-2513, Hoffman v. Hoffman

Docket Nº:96-2513.
Citation:106 F.3d 390
Party Name:Barbara HOFFMAN, Plaintiff--Appellant, v. Michael HOFFMAN; Joseph Rouse; Attorney General of the State of Maryland; Judge Ricks; Judge Mullins; Judge Dryden; Judge Goudy; Judge Greene, Jr.; Judge Keller; Assignment Office of Circuit Court, Anne Arundel County; Kerry Anderson; David Bowers; Gale Ann Belucci; Richard Bacharach, M.D.; Department of So
Case Date:January 23, 1997
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Page 390

106 F.3d 390 (4th Cir. 1997)

Barbara HOFFMAN, Plaintiff--Appellant,

v.

Michael HOFFMAN; Joseph Rouse; Attorney General of the State of Maryland; Judge Ricks; Judge Mullins; Judge Dryden; Judge Goudy; Judge Greene, Jr.; Judge Keller; Assignment Office of Circuit Court, Anne Arundel County; Kerry Anderson; David Bowers; Gale Ann Belucci; Richard Bacharach, M.D.; Department of Social Services; Ginger Howard; Ingrid Hoffman; Sue Houser; Pam Ziolkowski; Bernie Divver; Eastern District Police Department of Anne Arundel County, Defendants--Appellees.

No. 96-2513.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

January 23, 1997

Editorial Note:

This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA4 Rule 36 regarding use of unpublished opinions)

Submitted Dec. 17, 1996.

Decided Jan. 23, 1997.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-96-2927-AMD)

Barbara Hoffman, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (1994), as amended by Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996, Pub.L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321, Appellant's personal injury claim. 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. Hoffman v. Hoffman, No. CA-96-2927-AMD (D.Md. Sept. 23, 1996). 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

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP