H. Laskey v. State of Maryland, No. 14-1413 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1413 H. LEIGHTON LASKEY, Plaintiff Appellant, v. STATE OF MARYLAND; CITY OF BALTIMORE; MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL, for the City of Baltimore; LAW DEPARTMENT, for the City of Baltimore; CHRIS LUNDY, Defense Counsel; FRANK CONAWAY, Clerk of the Court s Baltimore City Circuit; BALTIMORE CITY CIRCUIT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:14-cv-00853-WDQ) Submitted: June 26, 2014 Decided: July 1, 2014 Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. H. Leighton Laskey, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: H. Leighton Laskey appeals the district court s order dismissing his civil action without prejudice Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). our review brief. to the issues raised 4th Cir. R. 34(b). in pursuant On appeal, we confine the appellant s alleges that the informal Laskey does not fairly argue that Younger abstention is inappropriate in his case. baldly to state court clerk Rather, he falsified court records in his state court action, that the action should have been dismissed earlier for lack of prosecution, and that Appellees are engaged in a conspiracy to deprive him of access to the judicial system. These allegations are raised for the first time on appeal, see Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993) (declining to address on appeal claims not presented to district court), and in any event, find no support in the record. judgment. Accordingly, and materials affirm the district court s Laskey v. Maryland, No. 1:14-cv-00853-WDQ (D. Md. Apr. 21, 2014). facts we legal before We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately this and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2

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.