Filed: May 27, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8576 BILLY G. ASEMANI, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. STATE OF MARYLAND; GARY D. MAYNARD, Secretary; J. MICHAEL STOUFFER, Commissioner; KATHLEEN S. GREEN, Warden, Defendants – Appellees, STEPHANIE JUDITH LANE WEBER, Party-in-Interest - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:08-cv-02618-RDB) Submitted: May 21, 2009 Decided: May 27,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8576 BILLY G. ASEMANI, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. STATE OF MARYLAND; GARY D. MAYNARD, Secretary; J. MICHAEL STOUFFER, Commissioner; KATHLEEN S. GREEN, Warden, Defendants – Appellees, STEPHANIE JUDITH LANE WEBER, Party-in-Interest - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:08-cv-02618-RDB) Submitted: May 21, 2009 Decided: May 27, 2..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8576 BILLY G. ASEMANI, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. STATE OF MARYLAND; GARY D. MAYNARD, Secretary; J. MICHAEL STOUFFER, Commissioner; KATHLEEN S. GREEN, Warden, Defendants – Appellees, STEPHANIE JUDITH LANE WEBER, Party-in-Interest - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:08-cv-02618-RDB) Submitted: May 21, 2009 Decided: May 27, 2009 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Billy G. Asemani, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith Lane Weber, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Billy G. Asemani appeals the district court’s order in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Asemani v. Maryland, No. 1:08-cv-02618-RDB (D. Md. Dec. 4, 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
