Filed: Jun. 23, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6283 ARTHUR RODGERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WARDEN SHEARIN; GREG FLURY; AVA JOUBERT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:13-cv-02902-CCB) Submitted: June 19, 2014 Decided: June 23, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Arthur Rodgers, Appellant P
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6283 ARTHUR RODGERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WARDEN SHEARIN; GREG FLURY; AVA JOUBERT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:13-cv-02902-CCB) Submitted: June 19, 2014 Decided: June 23, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Arthur Rodgers, Appellant Pr..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6283
ARTHUR RODGERS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN SHEARIN; GREG FLURY; AVA JOUBERT,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
(1:13-cv-02902-CCB)
Submitted: June 19, 2014 Decided: June 23, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Arthur Rodgers, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Arthur Rodgers appeals the district court’s orders
dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) civil
rights complaint for failure to comply with the court’s earlier
order to particularize and amend the complaint, and denying
Rodgers’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend that
judgment. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. See Rodgers v. Shearin, No. 1:13-cv-02902-CCB
(D. Md. Jan. 31, 2014 & Feb. 27, 2014). 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