Filed: Feb. 12, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7431 CURTIS BYRD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SALISBURY POLICE DEPARTMENT; TOM GRIFFIN, Officer; RUSTY SAVAGE, Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, Chief District Judge. (CA-03-1939-L) Submitted: January 30, 2004 Decided: February 12, 2004 Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublishe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7431 CURTIS BYRD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SALISBURY POLICE DEPARTMENT; TOM GRIFFIN, Officer; RUSTY SAVAGE, Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, Chief District Judge. (CA-03-1939-L) Submitted: January 30, 2004 Decided: February 12, 2004 Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7431 CURTIS BYRD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SALISBURY POLICE DEPARTMENT; TOM GRIFFIN, Officer; RUSTY SAVAGE, Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, Chief District Judge. (CA-03-1939-L) Submitted: January 30, 2004 Decided: February 12, 2004 Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Curtis Byrd, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Curtis Byrd appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his motion to reopen 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. Salisbury Police Dep’t, No. CA-03- 1939-L (D. Md. Sept. 4, 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 -
