Sanders v. State of MD ( 1999 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-2535
HENRY T. SANDERS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
THE STATE OF MARYLAND; CIRCUIT COURT OF MARY-
LAND FOR PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 99-1071
HENRY T. SANDERS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
THE STATE OF MARYLAND; CIRCUIT COURT OF MARY-
LAND FOR PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 99-1345
HENRY T. SANDERS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
THE STATE OF MARYLAND; CIRCUIT COURT OF MARY-
LAND FOR PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge;
Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA-98-2387-PJM)
Submitted: May 13, 1999 Decided: May 18, 1999
Before WIDENER and MOTZ,* Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Nos. 98-2535 and 99-1345 affirmed and No. 99-1071 dismissed by
unpublished per curiam opinion.
Henry T. Sanders, Landover, Maryland, Appellant Pro Se. Maureen
Mullen Dove, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
*
Judge Motz did not participate in consideration of this
case. The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 46(d) (1994).
2
PER CURIAM:
Henry T. Sanders appeals three district orders: (1) the de-
nial of relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) com-
plaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(e)(2) (West Supp. 1998) (No. 98-
2535), (2) the issuance of an order to show cause why Sanders
should not be sanctioned (No. 99-1071), and (3) the denial of
Defendants’ motion for sanctions (No. 99-1345). We have reviewed
the record and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, in No. 98-2535, we grant leave to proceed in
forma pauperis and affirm on the reasoning of the district court.
See Sanders v. Maryland, No. CA-98-2387-PJM (D. Md. Aug. 24, 1998).
We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis in No. 99-1071 but
dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. Finally, we affirm the denial
of Defendants’ motion for sanctions in No. 99-1345 on the reasoning
of the district court. See Sanders v. Maryland, No. CA-98-2387-PJM
(D. Md. Feb. 25, 1999). We also deny all of Sanders’ outstanding
motions, including his motions for a stay, general relief, an
injunction, sanctions, settlement alternatives, restoration to the
argument calendar, alternatives, an interim stay, ex parte inter-
locutory relief, affirmative relief, mandate, expedition of appeal,
writ of habeas corpus, transfer, judgment on counter and cross-
claims, dismissal, evidentiary hearing, a show cause order, leave
to file a memorandum, and default. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
3
the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
Nos. 98-2535, 99-1345 - AFFIRMED
No. 99-1071 - DISMISSED
4