Filed: Mar. 05, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7993 CHARLIE MATTHEWS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. VALERIE MURRAY; DR. COLIN OTTEY; WILLIAM BEEMAN; GREG FLURY; LISA SCHINDLER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:13-cv-00059-RDB) Submitted: February 27, 2014 Decided: March 5, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per cur
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7993 CHARLIE MATTHEWS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. VALERIE MURRAY; DR. COLIN OTTEY; WILLIAM BEEMAN; GREG FLURY; LISA SCHINDLER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:13-cv-00059-RDB) Submitted: February 27, 2014 Decided: March 5, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curi..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7993
CHARLIE MATTHEWS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
VALERIE MURRAY; DR. COLIN OTTEY; WILLIAM BEEMAN; GREG FLURY;
LISA SCHINDLER,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:13-cv-00059-RDB)
Submitted: February 27, 2014 Decided: March 5, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charlie Matthews, Appellant Pro Se. Michelle Jacquelyn
Marzullo, Richard P. Seitz, MARKS, O’NEILL, O’BRIEN, DOHERTY &
KELLY, P.C., Towson, Maryland; Gina Marie Smith, MEYERS, RODBELL
& ROSENBAUM, PA, Riverdale, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Charlie Matthews 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. Matthews v. Murray, No. 1:13-cv-00059-RDB (D. Md. Dec.
4, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
2