Filed: Jan. 28, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7614 ANTWOINE LEACH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THE BALTIMORE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT; UNKNOWN POLICE OFFICER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-03- 1925-AMD) Submitted: January 15, 2004 Decided: January 28, 2004 Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpub
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7614 ANTWOINE LEACH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THE BALTIMORE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT; UNKNOWN POLICE OFFICER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-03- 1925-AMD) Submitted: January 15, 2004 Decided: January 28, 2004 Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpubl..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7614 ANTWOINE LEACH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THE BALTIMORE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT; UNKNOWN POLICE OFFICER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-03- 1925-AMD) Submitted: January 15, 2004 Decided: January 28, 2004 Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Antwoine Leach, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Antwoine Leach appeals the district court’s order denying relief on 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 Leach v. Baltimore City Police Dep’t, No. CA-03-1925-AMD (D. Md. Sept. 9, 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 -
