Filed: Mar. 13, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2397 DARYL SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MARYLAND STATE POLICE; DAVID B. MITCHELL, Secretary of the Department of State Police; E. J. KRICKLER; HECTOR VENTO, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-1716-WMN) Submitted: March 6, 2003 Decided: March 13, 2003 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, C
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2397 DARYL SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MARYLAND STATE POLICE; DAVID B. MITCHELL, Secretary of the Department of State Police; E. J. KRICKLER; HECTOR VENTO, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-1716-WMN) Submitted: March 6, 2003 Decided: March 13, 2003 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Ci..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2397 DARYL SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MARYLAND STATE POLICE; DAVID B. MITCHELL, Secretary of the Department of State Police; E. J. KRICKLER; HECTOR VENTO, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-1716-WMN) Submitted: March 6, 2003 Decided: March 13, 2003 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Daryl Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Hugh Scott Curtis, Assistant Attorney General, Pikesville, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Daryl Smith appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons state by the district court. See Smith v. Maryland State Police, No. CA-02-1716-WMN (D. Md. Oct. 8 and Dec. 10, 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
