Filed: May 28, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6187 VERNON S. SPRIGGS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM SONDERVAN, Ph.D., Ed., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA- 02-1331-CCB) Submitted: May 19, 2003 Decided: May 28, 2003 Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Vernon S. Spriggs, Appellant P
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6187 VERNON S. SPRIGGS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM SONDERVAN, Ph.D., Ed., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA- 02-1331-CCB) Submitted: May 19, 2003 Decided: May 28, 2003 Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Vernon S. Spriggs, Appellant Pr..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6187 VERNON S. SPRIGGS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM SONDERVAN, Ph.D., Ed., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA- 02-1331-CCB) Submitted: May 19, 2003 Decided: May 28, 2003 Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Vernon S. Spriggs, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Vernon S. Spriggs appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendant and denying Spriggs’ motions to amend his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Spriggs v. Sondervan, No. CA-02-1331-CCB (D. Md. Dec. 4, 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
