Filed: Aug. 04, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6418 GEORGE RICHARD DOWLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MARY ANN SAAR; THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY & CORRECTIONAL SERVICES; JOHN H. PRICE, Warden, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (CA-04- 1591-RWT) Submitted: July 27, 2005 Decided: August 4, 2005 Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by u
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6418 GEORGE RICHARD DOWLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MARY ANN SAAR; THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY & CORRECTIONAL SERVICES; JOHN H. PRICE, Warden, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (CA-04- 1591-RWT) Submitted: July 27, 2005 Decided: August 4, 2005 Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by un..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6418 GEORGE RICHARD DOWLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MARY ANN SAAR; THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY & CORRECTIONAL SERVICES; JOHN H. PRICE, Warden, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (CA-04- 1591-RWT) Submitted: July 27, 2005 Decided: August 4, 2005 Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George Richard Dowler, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Stephanie Judith Lane Weber, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: George Richard Dowler 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 on the reasoning of the district court. See Dowler v. Saar, No. CA-04-1591-RWT (D. Md. Feb. 4, 2005). 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 -
