Filed: May 27, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6162 SHAWN DWAYNE BUCKNER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. E.P.R.U.C. SHIFT, (That worked on 5/01/12); LT. BRETT CALEY; SGT. CHAD KEEGAN; CO II KEITH CURTIS; CO II ROBERT CANIGLIO; CO II THEODORE JONES; CO II MICHAEL HANCOCK, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge. (8:14-cv-00789-RWT) Submitted: May 21, 2015 Decided: Ma
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6162 SHAWN DWAYNE BUCKNER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. E.P.R.U.C. SHIFT, (That worked on 5/01/12); LT. BRETT CALEY; SGT. CHAD KEEGAN; CO II KEITH CURTIS; CO II ROBERT CANIGLIO; CO II THEODORE JONES; CO II MICHAEL HANCOCK, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge. (8:14-cv-00789-RWT) Submitted: May 21, 2015 Decided: May..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6162
SHAWN DWAYNE BUCKNER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
E.P.R.U.C. SHIFT, (That worked on 5/01/12); LT. BRETT CALEY;
SGT. CHAD KEEGAN; CO II KEITH CURTIS; CO II ROBERT CANIGLIO;
CO II THEODORE JONES; CO II MICHAEL HANCOCK,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge.
(8:14-cv-00789-RWT)
Submitted: May 21, 2015 Decided: May 27, 2015
Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Shawn Dwayne Buckner, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Shawn Dwayne Buckner appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We
have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. See Buckner v. E.P.R.U.C. Shift, (That worked on
5/01/12), No. 8:14-cv-00789-RWT (D. Md. filed Jan. 16, 2015 &
entered Jan. 20, 2015). 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