Filed: Jun. 01, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6105 TITUS THOMAS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. OFFICER ALLGOOD; OFFICER VINE; GEORGE GREGORY, Hearing Officer; CCMS WILLIS; OFFICER HAWKINS; OFFICER ROBE; OFFICER JEROME; SGT. SMITH; SGT. OLIVER; OFFICER K. BROWN; SGT. D. ANDERSON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:10-cv-03134-AW) Submitted: May 26, 2011
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6105 TITUS THOMAS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. OFFICER ALLGOOD; OFFICER VINE; GEORGE GREGORY, Hearing Officer; CCMS WILLIS; OFFICER HAWKINS; OFFICER ROBE; OFFICER JEROME; SGT. SMITH; SGT. OLIVER; OFFICER K. BROWN; SGT. D. ANDERSON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:10-cv-03134-AW) Submitted: May 26, 2011 D..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6105
TITUS THOMAS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
OFFICER ALLGOOD; OFFICER VINE; GEORGE GREGORY, Hearing
Officer; CCMS WILLIS; OFFICER HAWKINS; OFFICER ROBE; OFFICER
JEROME; SGT. SMITH; SGT. OLIVER; OFFICER K. BROWN; SGT. D.
ANDERSON,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District
Judge. (8:10-cv-03134-AW)
Submitted: May 26, 2011 Decided: June 1, 2011
Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Titus Thomas, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Titus Thomas appeals the district court’s order
dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) civil
rights complaint for failing to comply with the court’s earlier
order requiring him to particularize and amend his complaint.
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. See Thomas v. Allgood, No. 8:10-cv-03134-AW (D. Md.
Dec. 23, 2010). 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