981 F.2d 1253 (4th Cir. 1992), 91-1138, Wrenn v. Sullivan

• Citation: 981 F.2d 1253
• Party Name: Curtis L. WRENN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Louis W. SULLIVAN, Secretary of Health and Human Services; University of Maryland School of Medicine; State of Maryland; Department of Health and Mental Hygiene; University of Maryland at Baltimore Medical System/Hospital and Professional Schools; G. Bruce McFadden, Individually and as Director; Morton I. Ra
• Case Date: December 28, 1992
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals, U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

Page 1253

981 F.2d 1253 (4th Cir. 1992)

Curtis L. WRENN, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

Louis W. SULLIVAN, Secretary of Health and Human Services; University of Maryland School of Medicine; State of Maryland; Department of Health and Mental Hygiene; University of Maryland at Baltimore Medical System/Hospital and Professional Schools; G. Bruce McFadden, Individually and as Director; Morton I. Rapport, M.D., Individually and as President; University of Maryland Medical Systems, Defendants-Appellees.

Curtis L. WRENN, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

Mark BEHM, Vice-President for Administrative Affairs of the University of Maryland; University of Maryland; State of Maryland, Defendants-Appellees.

Nos. 91-1138, 91-1582.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

December 28, 1992

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 (See FI CTA4 Rule 36 regarding use of unpublished opinions)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: June 4, 1992

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Walter E. Black, Jr., Chief District Judge; John R. Hargrove, District Judge. (CA-89-384-HAR, CA-91-970-B)

Curtis L. Wrenn, Appellant Pro Se.

D.Md.

No. 91-1138 AFFIRMED, No. 91-1582 DISMISSED.

Before HALL, WILKINSON, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Curtis Wrenn, a former Maryland resident and now a New York resident, filed these two actions in the district court alleging numerous claims of discriminatory employment practices. In both actions he proceeded pro se. In each action the district court ordered him to furnish the court with a local address where he could be served. Wrenn objected to the court's orders in each case, stating that he did not have any relatives in Maryland who could be served on his behalf. The court rejected his objections.

In 91-1138 Wrenn was ordered to obtain local counsel and warned that if he failed to do so his action would be dismissed. Wrenn moved for appointment of counsel; his motion was denied. Wrenn took an interlocutory appeal of that order, and this Court dismissed the appeal. Wrenn v. Sullivan, No. 89-2084 (4th Cir. Oct. 19, 1989) (unpublished). The district court then entered a final order dismissing the action. Wrenn appealed.

In 91-1582 the court rejected Wrenn's objections and gave him an extension of time in which to provide the court with a local address. Wrenn immediately...