McNamara v. Wasserman, (4th Cir. 1996)

Text

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6292

GARY N. MCNAMARA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus

MARTIN P. WASSERMAN, Individually and in his

capacity as Secretary for the Maryland De-

partment of Health & Mental Hygiene; MARY K. NOREN, Individually and in her capacity as

Superintendent for the Eastern Shore Hospital

Center; DAVID WILLIAMSON, Doctor, Individually

and in his capacity as Director of Forensic

Psychiatry for the Eastern Shore Hospital

Center; JOEL J. TODD, in his official and

administrative capacities as State's Attorney

for Worcester County, Maryland; ALL KNOWN AND

UNKNOWN PERSONS AS SET FORTH IN THE JOINDER OF

THE COMPLAINT; RICHARD ECKARDT, Social Worker

Eastern Shore Hospital Center; BURTON ANDER-

SON, Pu blic Defender Service; PAUL L. STONE, Rights Advisor Eastern Shore Hospital Center;

CINDY BASIL, Charge Nurse, Eastern Shore Hos-

pital Center; WALTER GUMBY, Assistant Public

Defender Service, RAUL LOPEZ, Doctor, Psychia-

trist, Eastern Shore Hospital Center; RUSSELL

P. SMITH, JR., Doctor, Dentist, Eastern Shore

Hospital Center; MARTIN BRANDES, Doctor,

Psychiatrist, Eastern Shore Hospital Center;

ANITA EARP ROBINSON, Honorable, Administrative

Law Judge, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-95-

7-AMD)

Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: July 31, 1996

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam

opinion.

Gary N. McNamara, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., At-

torney General, Baltimore Maryland; Susan Renee Steinberg, MARYLAND

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & MENTAL HYGIENE, Baltimore, Maryland, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM

Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (1988) action. All but four of Appellants' claims were dismissed without prejudice. Because such dismissals are generally not appealable, we dismiss the appeal regarding these claims. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392 , 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). Three of Appellant's remaining claims were dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(d) (1988), and Appellant's last claim was dismissed after summary judgment was granted to the only remaining Defendant. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and find no re versible error. Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of the remaining claims on the reasoning of the district court. McNamara v. Wasserman , No. CA-95-2907-AMD (D. Md. Oct. 24, 1995, & Feb. 1, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART

---