Filed: Oct. 16, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6535 TIMMY TERRON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ROBERT KUPEC, Warden; JOSEPH COLBURN, Captain; R. T. WELLS, Sergeant; L. R. VANN, Captain; EDWIN TURNER, Principal; VICTOR ELBECK, Adj. H.O.; ROBERT D. RITCHEY; MARVIN N. ROBBINS, I.G.O., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-01- 2155-AMD) Submitted: October 2, 2002
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6535 TIMMY TERRON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ROBERT KUPEC, Warden; JOSEPH COLBURN, Captain; R. T. WELLS, Sergeant; L. R. VANN, Captain; EDWIN TURNER, Principal; VICTOR ELBECK, Adj. H.O.; ROBERT D. RITCHEY; MARVIN N. ROBBINS, I.G.O., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-01- 2155-AMD) Submitted: October 2, 2002 D..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6535 TIMMY TERRON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ROBERT KUPEC, Warden; JOSEPH COLBURN, Captain; R. T. WELLS, Sergeant; L. R. VANN, Captain; EDWIN TURNER, Principal; VICTOR ELBECK, Adj. H.O.; ROBERT D. RITCHEY; MARVIN N. ROBBINS, I.G.O., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-01- 2155-AMD) Submitted: October 2, 2002 Decided: October 16, 2002 Before WILKINS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Timmy Terron, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Timmy Terron seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying reconsideration of the denial of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Terron v. Kupec, No. CA-01-2155-AMD (D. Md. July 30, 2001 & Jan. 15, 2002). 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
