Opinion
No. 14-1413
07-01-2014
H. LEIGHTON LASKEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. STATE OF MARYLAND; CITY OF BALTIMORE; MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL, for the City of Baltimore; LAW DEPARTMENT, for the City of Baltimore; CHRIS LUNDY, Defense Counsel; FRANK CONAWAY, Clerk of the Court's Baltimore City Circuit; BALTIMORE CITY CIRCUIT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE, Defendants - Appellees.
H. Leighton Laskey, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:14-cv-00853-WDQ) Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. H. Leighton Laskey, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
H. Leighton Laskey appeals the district court's order dismissing his civil action without prejudice pursuant to Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the appellant's informal brief. 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Laskey does not fairly argue that Younger abstention is inappropriate in his case. Rather, he baldly alleges that the state court clerk falsified court records in his state court action, that the action should have been dismissed earlier for lack of prosecution, and that Appellees are engaged in a conspiracy to deprive him of access to the judicial system. These allegations are raised for the first time on appeal, see Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993) (declining to address on appeal claims not presented to district court), and in any event, find no support in the record. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment. Laskey v. Maryland, No. 1:14-cv-00853-WDQ (D. Md. Apr. 21, 2014). 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