Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Morrison v. Arrisueno, 00-6148 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-6148 Visitors: 18
Filed: Jul. 19, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6148 ANDREW A. MORRISON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JUAN ARRISUENO, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA- 99-2718-PJM) Submitted: June 30, 2000 Decided: July 19, 2000 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Andrew A. Morrison, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Eva
More
                             UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 00-6148



ANDREW A. MORRISON,

                                              Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus


JUAN ARRISUENO,

                                              Defendant - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA-
99-2718-PJM)


Submitted:   June 30, 2000                 Decided:   July 19, 2000


Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Andrew A. Morrison, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Evan Blumenfield,
KRAMON & GRAHAM, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

     Andrew A. Morrison appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C.A.

§ 1983 (West Supp. 2000) action.     We have reviewed the district

court’s order dismissing the action and find no reversible error.

See Morrison v. Arrisueno, No. CA-99-2718-PJM (D. Md. Dec. 27,

1999; & Feb. 3, 2000); see also Estelle v. Gamble, 
429 U.S. 97
, 106

(1976); Miltier v. Beorn, 
896 F.2d 848
, 851 (4th Cir. 1990).   Ac-

cordingly, we affirm.   We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate-

rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.




                                                          AFFIRMED




                                 2

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer