Filed: Oct. 27, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7299 KAIMEL GLENN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. APRIL BAKER, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:09-cv-00388-WDQ) Submitted: October 20, 2009 Decided: October 27, 2009 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kaimel Gl
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7299 KAIMEL GLENN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. APRIL BAKER, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:09-cv-00388-WDQ) Submitted: October 20, 2009 Decided: October 27, 2009 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kaimel Gle..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7299 KAIMEL GLENN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. APRIL BAKER, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:09-cv-00388-WDQ) Submitted: October 20, 2009 Decided: October 27, 2009 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kaimel Glenn, Appellant Pro Se. Philip Melton Andrews, Mary Beth Ewen, KRAMON & GRAHAM, PA, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kaimel Glenn 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. Glenn v. Baker, No. 1:09-cv-00388-WDQ (D. Md. filed June 4, 2009 & entered June 5, 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
