Earl Richardson v. The Great State of Maryland, No. 08-1802 (4th Cir. 2008)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1802 EARL L. RICHARDSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. THE GREAT STATE OF MARYLAND; CECIL COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICE; NICHOLAS RICCIUTI, Director of Cecil County Department of Social Services; WILLIAMS JONES, Employee of Department of Social Services; SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION; MRS. GULOTTI, Elkton Maryland Branch; MRS. DAVIDS, Elkton Maryland Branch; THE GREAT STATE OF WASHINGTON; CLALLAM COUNTY WASHINGTON; JIM JONES, Administrator; LINDA CLEVENGER, Administrator; DEPARTMENT OF PAROLE AND PROBATION, Defendants Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:08-cv-01087-CCB) Submitted: October 27, 2008 Decided: November 14, 2008 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Earl L. Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. Julia Doyle Bernhardt, Assistant Attorney General, William Ferris Brockman, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland; Mark C. Jobson, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON, Olympia, Washington; Kelly Hughes Iverson, GOODELL, DEVRIES, DANN, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. LEECH Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 & PER CURIAM: Earl L. Richardson appeals the district court s order dismissing this action complaining social security benefits. no reversible error. No. dispense with termination of Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons Richardson v. The Great State of 1:08-cv-01087-CCB oral the We have reviewed the record and find stated by the district court. Maryland, about argument (D. Md. because July the 2, facts 2008). and We 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.