Filed: Jul. 27, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7656 ALBERT CURTIS MILLS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RICHARD LANHAM, State of Maryland Department of Corrections; MARYLAND CORRECTIONAL ADJUST- MENT CENTER; PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA- 97-3032-DKC) Submitted: July 22, 1999 Decided: July 27, 1999 Before ERV
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7656 ALBERT CURTIS MILLS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RICHARD LANHAM, State of Maryland Department of Corrections; MARYLAND CORRECTIONAL ADJUST- MENT CENTER; PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA- 97-3032-DKC) Submitted: July 22, 1999 Decided: July 27, 1999 Before ERVI..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7656 ALBERT CURTIS MILLS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RICHARD LANHAM, State of Maryland Department of Corrections; MARYLAND CORRECTIONAL ADJUST- MENT CENTER; PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA- 97-3032-DKC) Submitted: July 22, 1999 Decided: July 27, 1999 Before ERVIN, HAMILTON, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Albert Curtis Mills, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Albert Curtis Mills appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Mills v. Lanham, No. CA-97-3032-DKC (D. Md. Sept. 19, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
