Filed: Aug. 22, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6849 VANCE BYRD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ROBERT L. EHRLICH, JR., Governor; MARY ANN SAAR, Secretary of Public Safety and Correctional Services, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (CA-03-01270-03-WDQ) Submitted: August 14, 2003 Decided: August 22, 2003 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6849 VANCE BYRD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ROBERT L. EHRLICH, JR., Governor; MARY ANN SAAR, Secretary of Public Safety and Correctional Services, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (CA-03-01270-03-WDQ) Submitted: August 14, 2003 Decided: August 22, 2003 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges...
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6849 VANCE BYRD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ROBERT L. EHRLICH, JR., Governor; MARY ANN SAAR, Secretary of Public Safety and Correctional Services, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (CA-03-01270-03-WDQ) Submitted: August 14, 2003 Decided: August 22, 2003 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Vance Byrd, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Vance Byrd appeals the district court’s order dismissing 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 Byrd v. Ehrlich, No. CA-03- 01270-03-WDQ (D. Md. filed May 19, 2003; entered May 20, 2003). 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
