Filed: Feb. 06, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7451 SCOTT WEDINGTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA- 03-2431-8-DKC) Submitted: January 29, 2004 Decided: February 6, 2004 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opini
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7451 SCOTT WEDINGTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA- 03-2431-8-DKC) Submitted: January 29, 2004 Decided: February 6, 2004 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinio..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7451 SCOTT WEDINGTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA- 03-2431-8-DKC) Submitted: January 29, 2004 Decided: February 6, 2004 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Scott Wedington, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Scott Wedington appeals the district court’s order dismissing as frivolous his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Wedington v. U.S. District Court, No. CA-03-2431-8-DKC (D. Md. Aug. 29, 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. DISMISSED - 2 -
