Filed: Aug. 19, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6371 ALBERT CURTIS MILLS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WARDEN, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (8:07-cv-03466-DKC) Submitted: August 14, 2008 Decided: August 19, 2008 Before MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Albert Curtis Mills, Ap
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6371 ALBERT CURTIS MILLS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WARDEN, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (8:07-cv-03466-DKC) Submitted: August 14, 2008 Decided: August 19, 2008 Before MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Albert Curtis Mills, App..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6371 ALBERT CURTIS MILLS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WARDEN, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (8:07-cv-03466-DKC) Submitted: August 14, 2008 Decided: August 19, 2008 Before MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Albert Curtis Mills, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Albert Curtis Mills seeks to appeal the district court’s order placing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint on the unassigned docket in accordance with Mills’ pre-filing injunction. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not err. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Mills v. Warden, No. 8:07-cv-03466-DKC (D. Md. Jan. 8, 2008). 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
