Michael Sindram, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Arthur M. Ahalt; Vincent J. Femia; Rangarathmanthripragada; Gary A. Courtois; Joseph G. Poirier;robin J. Derwin; William Parker; Richard P. Gilbert;robert C. Murphy; Robert F. Sweeney; R. Russell Sadler;john R. Hargrove, Hon.; Catherine C. Blake; Mr. Phillips;mr. Sprouse; Mr. Butzner; Joseph F. Spaniol, Jr.; Mrs.spagnola; William H. Rehnquist, Defendants-appellees.michael Sindram, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Arthur M. Ahalt; Vincent J. Femia; Rangarathmanthripragada; Gary A. Courtois; Joseph G. Poirier;robin J. Derwin; William Parker; Richard P. Gilbert;robert C. Murphy; Robert F. Sweeney; R. Russell Sadler;john R. Hargrove, Hon.; Catherine C. Blake; Mr. Phillips;mr. Sprouse; Mr. Butzner; Joseph F. Spaniol, Jr.; Mrs.spagnola; William H. Rehnquist, Defendants-appellees, 955 F.2d 42 (4th Cir. 1992)
Annotate this CaseAppeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA-90-689-S)
Michael Sindram, appellant pro se.
Geoffrey Robert Garinther, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Md., for appellees.
D. Md.
DISMISSED.
Before DONALD RUSSELL, WILKINSON and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Michael Sindram appeals the district court's order granting judgment in favor of the Defendants on immunity grounds in an action removed from state court (No. 91-2579). He also appeals the district court's denial of his motion for reconsideration (No. 91-2625). Our review of the record and the district court's opinion reveals that these appeals are without merit. Accordingly, we deny leave to appeal in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeals on the reasoning of the district court. Sindram v. Ahalt, No. CA-90-689-S (D. Md. May 22, 1991; June 14, 1991). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not significantly aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
