Filed: Oct. 23, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6023 MIKE S. SCOTT, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. GARY D. MAYNARD; J. MICHAEL STOUFFER; MR. MILLER; MR. DURST; MR. ROWLEY; MR. SHEARING; MR. GRAHAM; H. THOMAS; DR. HOLWAGER, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:07-cv-03080-AW) Submitted: October 20, 2009 Decided: October 23, 2009 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, N
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6023 MIKE S. SCOTT, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. GARY D. MAYNARD; J. MICHAEL STOUFFER; MR. MILLER; MR. DURST; MR. ROWLEY; MR. SHEARING; MR. GRAHAM; H. THOMAS; DR. HOLWAGER, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:07-cv-03080-AW) Submitted: October 20, 2009 Decided: October 23, 2009 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, NI..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6023 MIKE S. SCOTT, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. GARY D. MAYNARD; J. MICHAEL STOUFFER; MR. MILLER; MR. DURST; MR. ROWLEY; MR. SHEARING; MR. GRAHAM; H. THOMAS; DR. HOLWAGER, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:07-cv-03080-AW) Submitted: October 20, 2009 Decided: October 23, 2009 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mike S. Scott, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Mike S. Scott appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Scott v. Maynard, No. 8:07-cv-03080-AW (D. Md. Dec. 9, 2009). 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
