Roberts v. Nicholas, No. 07-1472 (4th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1472 DAVID A. ROBERTS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN NICHOLAS, individually and in his official capacity as Commissioner of Maine Department of Health and Human Services; PETER WALSH, individually and in his official capacity as Commissioner of Maine Department of Health and Human Services; KEVIN W. CONCANNON, individually and in his official capacity as Commissioner (former) of Maine Department of Health and Human Services; MARK O. VAN VALKENBURGH, individually and in his official capacity as agent for the Maine Department of Health and Human Services; INGRID B. LAPOINTE, individually and in her official capacity as agent for the Maine Department of Health and Human Services; ANNEMARIE JOHNSON, individually and in her official capacity as agent for the Maine Department of Health and Human Services; LORETTA DUMOND, individually and in her official capacity as agent for the Maine Department of Health and Human Services; MAINE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:04-cv-02039-WDQ) Submitted: December 7, 2007 Decided: January 9, 2008 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David A. Roberts, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph B. Spillman, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland; Christopher Coles Taub, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Augusta, Maine, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. - 2 - PER CURIAM: David A. Roberts appeals the district court s order granting Defendants Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion. reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Nicholas, No. 1:04-cv-02039-WDQ (D. Md. Jan. We have 26, Roberts v. 2007). 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 - 3 -
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.
