Filed: Aug. 22, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6879 EZRA CHARLES CALLOWAY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY, MARYLAND; BARRY STANTON, Warden; MAJOR CRUMBECKER; SHIFT SERGEANT CRUMP, Defendants - Appellees, and PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY CORRECTIONAL CENTER; RICARDO WILLIAMS, II, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-02-324-AW) Submitted: August 15,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6879 EZRA CHARLES CALLOWAY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY, MARYLAND; BARRY STANTON, Warden; MAJOR CRUMBECKER; SHIFT SERGEANT CRUMP, Defendants - Appellees, and PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY CORRECTIONAL CENTER; RICARDO WILLIAMS, II, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-02-324-AW) Submitted: August 15, ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6879 EZRA CHARLES CALLOWAY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY, MARYLAND; BARRY STANTON, Warden; MAJOR CRUMBECKER; SHIFT SERGEANT CRUMP, Defendants - Appellees, and PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY CORRECTIONAL CENTER; RICARDO WILLIAMS, II, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-02-324-AW) Submitted: August 15, 2002 Decided: August 22, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ezra Charles Calloway, Appellant Pro Se. Rhonda Lee Weaver, Upper Marlboro, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Ezra Charles Calloway appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint. 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 Calloway v. Prince George’s County, No. CA-02-324-AW (D. Md. May 16, 2002). 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