Filed: Aug. 06, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6140 LESTER WARREN CARTER, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOSEPH CURRAN, JR.; ANN N. BOSSE; OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA- 94-3020-CCB) Submitted: July 24, 1997 Decided: August 6, 1997 Before HAMILTON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6140 LESTER WARREN CARTER, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOSEPH CURRAN, JR.; ANN N. BOSSE; OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA- 94-3020-CCB) Submitted: July 24, 1997 Decided: August 6, 1997 Before HAMILTON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curia..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6140 LESTER WARREN CARTER, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOSEPH CURRAN, JR.; ANN N. BOSSE; OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA- 94-3020-CCB) Submitted: July 24, 1997 Decided: August 6, 1997 Before HAMILTON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lester Warren Carter, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Kathleen Hoke Dachille, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Ac- cordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Carter v. Curran, No. CA-94-3020-CCB (D. Md. Dec. 31, 1996). 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
