Filed: Aug. 26, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6265 EDSON FURTADO, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. THOMAS MANGER, Chief, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:07-cv- 03403-RWT) Submitted: August 21, 2008 Decided: August 26, 2008 Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edson Furtado, Appellant Pro Se.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6265 EDSON FURTADO, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. THOMAS MANGER, Chief, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:07-cv- 03403-RWT) Submitted: August 21, 2008 Decided: August 26, 2008 Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edson Furtado, Appellant Pro Se. ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6265 EDSON FURTADO, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. THOMAS MANGER, Chief, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:07-cv- 03403-RWT) Submitted: August 21, 2008 Decided: August 26, 2008 Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edson Furtado, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Edson Furtado 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. Furtado v. Manger, No. 8:07-cv-03403-RWT (D. Md. Feb. 1, 2008). Furtado’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied. 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
