Filed: Jun. 08, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1535 T. JAMES ANDERSON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM S. HORNE, Judge, Talbot County Circuit Court, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-912- AMD) Submitted: May 31, 2001 Decided: June 8, 2001 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. T. James Anderso
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1535 T. JAMES ANDERSON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM S. HORNE, Judge, Talbot County Circuit Court, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-912- AMD) Submitted: May 31, 2001 Decided: June 8, 2001 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. T. James Anderson..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1535 T. JAMES ANDERSON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM S. HORNE, Judge, Talbot County Circuit Court, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-912- AMD) Submitted: May 31, 2001 Decided: June 8, 2001 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. T. James Anderson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: T. James Anderson appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii) (West Supp. 2000). We have re- viewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Anderson v. Horne, No. CA-912-AMD (D. Md. Mar. 29 & 30, 2001). 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 2
