Filed: Nov. 16, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6718 CHAUNCEY DEMETRIUS BENNETT, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. WARDEN KATHLEEN GREEN; HEARING OFFICER SCOTT ROWE; SECRETARY STEPHEN T. MOYER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. Bredar, District Judge. (1:15-cv-03026-JKB) Submitted: October 20, 2016 Decided: November 16, 2016 Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpub
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6718 CHAUNCEY DEMETRIUS BENNETT, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. WARDEN KATHLEEN GREEN; HEARING OFFICER SCOTT ROWE; SECRETARY STEPHEN T. MOYER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. Bredar, District Judge. (1:15-cv-03026-JKB) Submitted: October 20, 2016 Decided: November 16, 2016 Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpubl..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6718
CHAUNCEY DEMETRIUS BENNETT,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
WARDEN KATHLEEN GREEN; HEARING OFFICER SCOTT ROWE;
SECRETARY STEPHEN T. MOYER,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. Bredar, District Judge.
(1:15-cv-03026-JKB)
Submitted: October 20, 2016 Decided: November 16, 2016
Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Chauncey Demetrius Bennett, Appellant Pro Se. Nichole Cherie
Gatewood, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Chauncey Demetrius Bennett appeals the district court’s
order granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment and
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. Bennett v. Green, No. 1:15-cv-03026-JKB (D. Md. May 17,
2016). 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