Roger Hohl, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Deputy Sheriff Richard Roberts, No. 60; Captain Jacobfrancis, Jr., Defendants-appellees.roger Hohl, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Deputy Sheriff Richard Roberts, No. 60; Captain Jacobfrancis, Jr., Defendants-appellees, 869 F.2d 593 (4th Cir. 1989)
Annotate this CaseRoger Hohl, appellant pro se.
John Joseph Curran, Jr. (Office of the Attorney General of Maryland), Thomas King Farley (County Attorney's Office), for appellees.
Before JAMES DICKSON PHILLIPS, ERVIN and CHAPMAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Roger Hohl appeals from the district court's order denying relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.* Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Hohl v. Roberts, C/A No. 88-1255-S (D. Md. May 5, 1988). Hohl's motion for summary reversal is denied. We dispense with oral argument because the dispositive issues recently have been decided authoritatively.
AFFIRMED.
Jurisdiction in the district court, sought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3), failed because Hohl did not present a cognizable civil rights claim of sufficient substance to support jurisdiction. See Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-38 (1974); Davis v. Pak, 856 F.2d 648 (4th Cir. 1988)
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.
