Filed: Jul. 19, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6148 ANDREW A. MORRISON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JUAN ARRISUENO, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA- 99-2718-PJM) Submitted: June 30, 2000 Decided: July 19, 2000 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Andrew A. Morrison, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Eva
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6148 ANDREW A. MORRISON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JUAN ARRISUENO, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA- 99-2718-PJM) Submitted: June 30, 2000 Decided: July 19, 2000 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Andrew A. Morrison, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Evan..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-6148
ANDREW A. MORRISON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JUAN ARRISUENO,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA-
99-2718-PJM)
Submitted: June 30, 2000 Decided: July 19, 2000
Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Andrew A. Morrison, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Evan Blumenfield,
KRAMON & GRAHAM, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Andrew A. Morrison appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C.A.
§ 1983 (West Supp. 2000) action. We have reviewed the district
court’s order dismissing the action and find no reversible error.
See Morrison v. Arrisueno, No. CA-99-2718-PJM (D. Md. Dec. 27,
1999; & Feb. 3, 2000); see also Estelle v. Gamble,
429 U.S. 97, 106
(1976); Miltier v. Beorn,
896 F.2d 848, 851 (4th Cir. 1990). Ac-
cordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate-
rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
2