Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Lawrence MILLS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. State of MARYLAND; Maryland State Police; Officer Anthony Hassan, In both his official and individual capacity as an officer of the Maryland State Police; Officer James Lantz, In both his official and individual capacity as an officer of the Maryland State Police; Officer Matthew Dull, In both his official and individual capacity as an officer of the Maryland State Police, Defendants - Appellees.
Lawrence Mills, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. State of Maryland; Maryland State Police; Officer Anthony Hassan, In both his official and individual capacity as an officer of the Maryland State Police; Officer James Lantz, In both his official and individual capacity as an officer of the Maryland State Police; Officer Matthew Dull, In both his official and individual capacity as an officer of the Maryland State Police, Defendants - Appellees.
Lawrence Mills appeals the district court's orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint and his postjudgment motions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Mills v. Maryland, No. 1:18-cv-00562-GLR (D. Md., Sept. 30, 2019; Dec. 23, 2019). We also deny Mills’ motions for partial summary reversal and vacatur, and for initial hearing en banc. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
PER CURIAM:
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 20-1019, No. 20-1021
Decided: September 28, 2020
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)