Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    37 views2 pages
    The Bly family appealed a district court ruling denying them relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, finding that the appeal was without merit for three reasons: 1) the Blys waived their right to review the initial magistrate's recommendation by failing to file timely objections; 2) while the Blys did not receive proper notice of the need to respond to the defendant's motion for summary judgment, this error was harmless based on the record; and 3) even if one of the issues was not subject to collateral estoppel, the issue itself was deemed to be without merit.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1993-06-01 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 993 F.2d 1535 Docket: 92-1574

    Original Title

    Raymond J. Bly Tieng D. Bly Christina T. Bly Curtis R. Bly Linda T. Bly v. Mike Marshall Sam Marshall Kathy McKone Robert Hammond Howard County, Maryland, a Municipal Corporation of Maryland Girard Schwessinger, Jr. Robert Fischer State of Maryland Robert Bates, and Mary O'DOnnell Linda Ostovitz Iris Green, 993 F.2d 1535, 4th Cir. (1993)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Bly family appealed a district court ruling denying them relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, finding that the appeal was without merit for three reasons: 1) the Blys waived their right to review the initial magistrate's recommendation by failing to file timely objections; 2) while the Blys did not receive proper notice of the need to respond to the defendant's motion for summary judgment, this error was harmless based on the record; and 3) even if one of the issues was not subject to collateral estoppel, the issue itself was deemed to be without merit.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    37 views2 pages

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The Bly family appealed a district court ruling denying them relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, finding that the appeal was without merit for three reasons: 1) the Blys waived their right to review the initial magistrate's recommendation by failing to file timely objections; 2) while the Blys did not receive proper notice of the need to respond to the defendant's motion for summary judgment, this error was harmless based on the record; and 3) even if one of the issues was not subject to collateral estoppel, the issue itself was deemed to be without merit.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    993 F.

    2d 1535

    NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of


    unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing
    res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires
    service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth
    Circuit.
    Raymond J. BLY; Tieng D. Bly; Christina T. Bly; Curtis R.
    Bly; Linda T. Bly, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
    v.
    Mike MARSHALL; Sam Marshall; Kathy McKone; Robert
    Hammond; Howard County, Maryland, a municipal
    corporation of
    Maryland; Girard Schwessinger, Jr.; Robert Fischer; State
    of Maryland; Robert Bates, Defendants-Appellees,
    and
    Mary O'DONNELL; Linda Ostovitz; Iris Green, Defendants.
    No. 92-1574.

    United States Court of Appeals,


    Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: April 20, 1993
    Decided: June 1, 1993

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland,
    at Baltimore. M. J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-88-3711-MJG)
    Raymond J. Bly, Tieng D. Bly, Christina T. Bly, Curtis R. Bly, Linda T.
    Bly, Appellants Pro Se.
    Wendy Jo Greenberg, Assistant Attorney General, Timothy James Paulus,
    Assistant Attorney General, Donna Rae Heller, Office of the Attorney
    General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland; Barbara McFaul Cook,
    County Solicitor, Ellicott City, Maryland; Frank Todd Taylor, Ellicott
    City, Maryland, for Appellees.
    D.Md.

    AFFIRMED.
    Before PHILLIPS and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER,
    Senior Circuit Judge.
    PER CURIAM:

    Raymond J., Tieng D., Christina T., Curtis R., and Linda T. Bly appeal from
    the district court's order denying relief under 42 U.S.C. 1983 (1988). Our
    review of the record and the district court's opinion accepting the
    recommendation of the magistrate judge discloses that this appeal is without
    merit.* Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Bly v.
    Marshall, CA-88-3711-MJG (D.Md. Nov. 21, 1989; Apr. 16, 1992). 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

    We find that Plaintiffs waived review of the initial recommendation of the


    magistrate by failing to file timely objections. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S.
    140 (1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 467
    U.S. 1208 (1984). Also, although the Blys did not receive the notice required by
    Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), on this record we find this
    error to be harmless. Even if Raymond Bly's alleged appeal precludes the
    application of collateral estoppel, we find the issue to be without merit. See
    Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U.S. 433 (1974)

    You might also like