Filed: Nov. 27, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7245 ROBERT JUNIOR WARDRICK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus VALLEY GUN SMITH; MELVIN ABRAMS; VALLEY GUN SHOP; TOWSON JERRERSONIAN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (1:07-cv- 01747-AMD) Submitted: November 15, 2007 Decided: November 27, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7245 ROBERT JUNIOR WARDRICK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus VALLEY GUN SMITH; MELVIN ABRAMS; VALLEY GUN SHOP; TOWSON JERRERSONIAN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (1:07-cv- 01747-AMD) Submitted: November 15, 2007 Decided: November 27, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7245 ROBERT JUNIOR WARDRICK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus VALLEY GUN SMITH; MELVIN ABRAMS; VALLEY GUN SHOP; TOWSON JERRERSONIAN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (1:07-cv- 01747-AMD) Submitted: November 15, 2007 Decided: November 27, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Junior Wardrick, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Robert Junior Wardrick appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice 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. Wardrick v. Valley Gun Smith, No. 1:07-ct-01747-AMD (D. Md. July 31, 2007). 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 -
