Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
William B. Echard, Plaintiff-appellant, v. U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service;jim Wist, Agent, Defendants-appellees,andanne Arundel County Department of Inspections & Permits;leroy Jonus; Damon Cogar; George Klug; James Thomas;mike Evans, Agents; State of Maryland Department Ofenvironment Sediment and Stormwater Administration; Martinw. Walsh; H. Earl Shaver; Chris Westergard; Frank Payer,agents; Cheval Trails Homeowners; Gary Probsts; Gradonripley, Agents, Defendants
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. - 955 F.2d 40
Submitted Sept. 27, 1991.Decided Feb. 10, 1992
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. M.J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-90-1138-MJG)
D.Md.
DENIED.
William B. Echard, appellant pro se.
Robert Mason Thomas, Jr., Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Md for appellees.
PER CURIAM:
William B. Echard has moved for a stay of proceedings in the district court pending his appeal of the district court's order dismissing the federal defendants from his suit and remanding his case to state court. Echard has failed to comply with Fed.R.App.P. 8(a), which requires application for a stay to be made first in the district court. Further, Echard has not shown that he is entitled to such a stay under the test set out in Long v. Robinson, 432 F.2d 977, 979 (4th Cir.1970).
The motion for stay is therefore denied. 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.
MOTION DENIED.