Ghulam Mohammed Nasim, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Richard J. Dipasquale, James E. Kardash, Paul K. Bressler,sr., Allen Edgar Harris, Charles Leroy Heim, John F. Hanson,norman B. Goodman, Fire Adjuster, Cletus Victor Reash,manager, the Home Insurance Company, All Individually and Intheir Official Capacities, Defendants-appellees, 861 F.2d 265 (4th Cir. 1988)
Annotate this CaseGhulam Mohammed Nasim, appellant pro se.
Richard J. Dipasquale, appellee pro se.
Richard Bruce Rosenblatt, Office of Attorney General of Maryland, James L. Mullaney, Alva P. Weaver, III, Weaver, Bendos & Clinnin, for remaining appellees.
PER CURIAM:
A review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal from that court's order denying relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) is without merit. Because the dispositive issues recently have been decided authoritatively, we dispense with oral argument and affirm the judgment below on the reasoning of the district court. Nasim v. Dipasquale, C/A No. 80-537-K (D. Md. Mar. 15, 1988).
AFFIRMED.
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.
