Filed: Jan. 05, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7262 CHARLES B. BROWNELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-04-124-AW) Submitted: November 19, 2004 Decided: January 5, 2005 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per c
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7262 CHARLES B. BROWNELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-04-124-AW) Submitted: November 19, 2004 Decided: January 5, 2005 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per cu..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7262 CHARLES B. BROWNELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-04-124-AW) Submitted: November 19, 2004 Decided: January 5, 2005 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles B. Brownell, Appellant Pro Se. David Phelps Kennedy, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Charles B. Brownell appeals the district court’s order granting the motion to dismiss his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Brownell v. Secretary, Dep’t of Pub. Safety & Corr. Servs., No. CA-04-124-AW (D. Md. July 1, 2004). 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