Filed: Jul. 08, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6116 CHARLES ROBERT CANTER, III, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. RICHARD GRAHAM, JR., Warden; JAMES TITCHNELL, Case Manager Manager; T. HUMBERTSON, Case Manager Specialist; J. WILSON, Case Manager Supervisor; B. PAYTON, Sergeant; C. MELLOTT, Major, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. George J. Hazel, District Judge. (8:14-cv-03995-GJH) Submitted: May 7,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6116 CHARLES ROBERT CANTER, III, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. RICHARD GRAHAM, JR., Warden; JAMES TITCHNELL, Case Manager Manager; T. HUMBERTSON, Case Manager Specialist; J. WILSON, Case Manager Supervisor; B. PAYTON, Sergeant; C. MELLOTT, Major, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. George J. Hazel, District Judge. (8:14-cv-03995-GJH) Submitted: May 7, 2..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6116
CHARLES ROBERT CANTER, III,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
RICHARD GRAHAM, JR., Warden; JAMES TITCHNELL, Case Manager
Manager; T. HUMBERTSON, Case Manager Specialist; J. WILSON,
Case Manager Supervisor; B. PAYTON, Sergeant; C. MELLOTT,
Major,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. George J. Hazel, District Judge.
(8:14-cv-03995-GJH)
Submitted: May 7, 2015 Decided: July 8, 2015
Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles Robert Canter, III, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Charles Robert Canter, III, appeals the district court’s
order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint under 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) (2012). We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. See Canter v. Graham, No.
8:14-cv-03995-GJH (D. Md. Jan. 8, 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