Filed: Feb. 16, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 01, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7693 NIGEL MACCADO, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CAPTAIN KANE; STEVE WILLIAMS, Warden of Dorchester County Jail, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-04-479-AW) Submitted: February 9, 2005 Decided: February 16, 2005 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7693 NIGEL MACCADO, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CAPTAIN KANE; STEVE WILLIAMS, Warden of Dorchester County Jail, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-04-479-AW) Submitted: February 9, 2005 Decided: February 16, 2005 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam o..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7693
NIGEL MACCADO,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
CAPTAIN KANE; STEVE WILLIAMS, Warden of
Dorchester County Jail,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.
(CA-04-479-AW)
Submitted: February 9, 2005 Decided: February 16, 2005
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nigel MacCado, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Bock Karpinski, Matthew
Douglas Peter, ALLEN, KARPINSKI, BRYANT & KARP, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Nigel MacCado appeals the district court’s order granting
summary judgment for the Defendants 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 MacCado v. Kane, No. CA-04-479-AW (D. Md. Oct.
7, 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
- 2 -