Narrative Opinion Summary
Cornell D.M. Judge Cornish appeals the dismissal of his complaint for failure to state a claim and the denial of his motion for reconsideration by the district court. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court’s decision based on its stated reasons. The appeal is noted as Cornell v. Balt. City, No. 1:14-cv-03117-GLR (D.Md. May 15, 2015, June 26, 2015). The court grants Cornish permission to file a reply brief that exceeds the standard length limitations but denies his request to add copyrighted material to the appeal. Oral argument is deemed unnecessary as the facts and legal issues are sufficiently presented in the submitted documents. The decision is affirmed. Unpublished opinions do not serve as binding precedent in this circuit.
Legal Issues Addressed
Denial of Motion for Reconsiderationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The district court's denial of the motion for reconsideration was upheld as the appellate court found no reversible error in its decision.
Reasoning: The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court’s decision based on its stated reasons.
Denial of Request to Add Copyrighted Materialsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court denied the appellant's request to include copyrighted material in the appeal.
Reasoning: The court grants Cornish permission to file a reply brief that exceeds the standard length limitations but denies his request to add copyrighted material to the appeal.
Dismissal for Failure to State a Claimsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The district court's dismissal of the complaint was reviewed and found to contain no reversible error, thus affirming the dismissal based on the district court's stated reasons.
Reasoning: The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court’s decision based on its stated reasons.
Oral Argument Not Requiredsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that oral argument was unnecessary because the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the submitted documents.
Reasoning: Oral argument is deemed unnecessary as the facts and legal issues are sufficiently presented in the submitted documents.
Permission to File Extended Reply Briefsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court granted permission for the appellant to file a reply brief that exceeded the standard length limitations.
Reasoning: The court grants Cornish permission to file a reply brief that exceeds the standard length limitations but denies his request to add copyrighted material to the appeal.
Unpublished Opinions as Non-Binding Precedentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The opinion in this case is unpublished and does not serve as binding precedent in the circuit.
Reasoning: Unpublished opinions do not serve as binding precedent in this circuit.