Filed: Apr. 05, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7924 MARK DAVID SWANN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BRENT MCKENZIE, Case Management Specialist, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:06-cv-00389-RDB) Submitted: March 29, 2007 Decided: April 5, 2007 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark David Swann, Ap
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7924 MARK DAVID SWANN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BRENT MCKENZIE, Case Management Specialist, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:06-cv-00389-RDB) Submitted: March 29, 2007 Decided: April 5, 2007 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark David Swann, App..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7924 MARK DAVID SWANN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BRENT MCKENZIE, Case Management Specialist, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:06-cv-00389-RDB) Submitted: March 29, 2007 Decided: April 5, 2007 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark David Swann, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith Lane Weber, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Mark David Swann 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 for the reasons stated by the district court. Swann v. McKenzie, No. 1:06-cv-00389-RDB (D. Md. Oct. 26, 2006). 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 -
